Nearly 700 years ago a group of people founded a city known as Tenochtitlán. The people of this city would set forth great conquests and dominate much of central and southern Mexico and even into Guatemala. Tenochtitlán would grow to become an engineering marvel, a metropolis of between 200,000-300,000 inhabitants by the 16th century. These were just a few of the achievements of the people of Tenochtitlán, but who were these people? You may have realized that we are talking about the Aztecs; however, Mesoamerican academics would inform you that the people of Tenochtitlan called themselves the Mexicas. Thus, where the Demonym or name Mexican comes from.

How the Mexicas got renamed Aztec has been a result of mainly three causes: their origin story of Aztlán, the grouping of Nahua people, and the separation of ancient Mexicans from modern Mexicans. There have been many discussions on why and how the word Aztec came to be accepted or if the Mexicas even used the word. Some have argued it was popularized by a European scholar while others point out that post-conquest Nahua nobles used the word. This article will attempt to briefly break down the meanings, the origin, the evolution and impact of how Mexica and Aztec have been used from different scholarly perspectives.

Overall Definitions

Before we dive into this topic, let's first cover a few definitions, the following are some of the keywords to know when talking about Mexica/Aztec history: 

Mexica — a postclassic Náhuatl-speaking people who migrated south to the Valley of Mexico from Aztlán who founded Tenochtitlan and established what is commonly referred to as the Aztec Empire.

Aztlán — the mythical homeland of 7 Nahua tribes, (Acolhua, Chalca, Mexica, Tepaneca, Tlahuica, Tlaxcalteca, and the Xochimilca). Some sources include more tribes.

Aztec — defined as:

1. the people of Aztlán, 

2. a modern label given to the Mexica, 

3. an umbrella term used to group all the Nahua-speaking cultures of post-classic central Mexico. 

4. a label used to separate the native people who called themselves Mexica from the modern demonym Mexican.

Tenochas — the residents of Tenochtitlan, (Mexicas lived/established many different cities and towns, for example, a Tlatelolca would be a resident of Tlatelolco.)

Aztec Empire — the modern label given to a joint alliance of three cities and cultures established in 1428 that came to dominate and conquer much of central Mesoamerica.

Postclassic — an archaeological period of Mesoamerica between 900-1521

Nahua(s)-speakers of the language Náhuatl.

The Origin and Evolution of the Word Aztec

After establishing these definitions, we can now drive into the origin and evolution of the word Aztec. As we can see from the list above, there are multiple meanings of the word. As historian Charles Gibson mentions in his literature “It should be noted that the term ‘Aztec’ has no very precise meaning.” (Gibson 1). The word has been used differently based on the opinions of scholars; typically modern-day scholars inform the reader of their definition, but the scholars of the past made no effort, only to use Mexican (Mexica) and Aztec at times interchangeably. Eventually, the Mexican (Mexica) was dropped and Aztec became the more popular term for the people of Tenochtitlán (Tenochas).  When talking about people 500 years ago it can be a hard task to find the exact identity of the time, fortunately, we do have accounts from this period that can allow us to be certain of a Mexica identity. 

Mexica Accounts

We know that the Tenochas called themselves Mexicas from Spanish and Indigenous accounts during the conquest. One source is seen in the literature of the well-known Mexican anthropologist Miguel Leon Portilla who in 1959 published Visión de los vencidos “Broken Arrows” in the English version (1962). Leon-Portilla translated various indigenous accounts during the Spanish Conquest. In this book, we find that the Tenochas referred to themselves as Mexicanos (Mexicas). We do not see the Tenochas referring to themselves as Aztecs from these accounts:

“I have heard that the Mexicans are great warriors, very brave and terrible. If a Mexican is fighting alone, he knows how to retreat, turn back, rush back, rush forward, and conquer, even if his opponents are ten or even twenty. “(Leon-Portilla 26)

“Captains, warriors, Mexicanos! Our enemies are escaping!” (Leon-Portilla 85)

Another indication of the importance of the Mexica identity is seen in the first Náhuatl dictionary, Vocabulario en Lengua Castellana y Mexicana. Between 1555 to 1571, author Franciscan Alonso de Molina compiled this dictionary with no mention of the word Aztec, but Mexicana is used to describe the language, not Aztecan. Although Náhuatl was the language, we see the domination of preference for the use of Mexicana to label the Náhuatl language. We also see no mention of any Spanish account referring to the Tenochas as Aztecs but Mexicanos. So then why did the Mexica label not continue? We do continue to see that Mexica became the Spanish translation of Mexicano. It wasn’t until around Mexican Independence that the term Aztec started to become popularized, 

How did Mexica become Aztec?

Starting in 1799, German scholar Alexander Von Humboldt went on a journey to explore the Americas which ended in 1804. His new experiences led him to publish Vues des Cordillères et Monuments des Peuples Indigènes de l’Amérique (Views of the Cordilleras and Monuments of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas) in 1810. It was the first time that a non-Mexican or Spanish scholar wrote about the people of Mexico.  This is where the word Aztèques (Aztec) appears for the outside of Mexico. His publication became a primary source due to the scarcity and availability of the Tenochas. This is why Von Humboldt is credited with having coined the term Aztec.  

This, however, was not the first time Aztec was used in literature. We do find the use of the word Aztec centuries earlier. Around 1598 Crónica Mexicayotl was produced by a Mestizo Noble Fernando Alvarado Tezozomoc and Indigenous scholar Chimalpahin of Chalco ancestry. According to this chronicle, there is a section that describes the Tenochas migration from their place of origin Aztlán, and how they were once called the Aztecs. From here there are different interpretations of who the Aztecs were based on different codices. Some suggest that the Aztecs were the rulers of Aztlán and the Mexica (Mexitin) were subjects to the Aztecs, another story tells that their deity Huitzilopochtli told the Mexica to rename themselves from Aztec to Mexica and leave and migrate south.

From here we can see that perhaps the Mexica were once Aztec and broke away or were confused and labeled as Aztec when they were a different people. It should also be noted that the Mexicas weren't the only people or tribe to leave Aztlán but several others did as well. If that is the case, then the seven tribes of Aztlán could be considered Aztec as well. However, the Mexica overshadowed the other tribes as we have seen in later literature. 

The word Aztec was then seen in the work of Jesuit scholar Francisco Javier Clavijero Echegaray who produced Historia Antigua de México in 1780. In this book, we see Azteca and Mexicano often being used together to describe the same people. From here Von Humboldt used the work of Clavijero in his already mentioned work to later influence William H. Prescott.

In 1843 William H Prescott released his book "The History of the Conquest of Mexico" This was perhaps the first literature written by an American on Aztec subjects. In this book Prescott never mentions the word Mexica; he does, however, use Aztec and Mexicans interchangeably much like his predecessors. He does mention the other cultures like Acolhuas, Tepanecas, and Tlascala but never includes them as Aztecs.  Prescott’s work became popularized especially for the English-speaking audience meanwhile Mexican scholars would continue to use both Mexica and Aztec. Since there was no clarification on where the name Aztec came from, we can see how readers associated the word Aztec with the founders of Tenochtitlán and Mexica was forgotten. This book became a principal source of Aztec history for decades to come for American audiences and the word Aztec continued to be used by future academics.

The New Mexican Identity

Another driving force behind a shift from Mexica to Aztec was to separate a “new” Mexican identity from the founders of Tenochtitlán. As Mexican Independence was achieved in 1821, it was time for the new government to unite all the people as Mexicans. The legacy of the Mexicas led to the Spanish calling the people of central Mexico Mexicans from the early colonial period.  Eventually, it appears that even the Criollos who were of European descent born in Mexico were labeled Mexican as well. By the 19th century, Mexico's demographics had greatly changed, Mexico was a mixed nation, but predominantly indigenous with many different languages and cultures. They were followed by the populations of Mestizos (mixed Indigenous and Europeans), Europeans, and African ancestries. For some academics, there developed a need to distinguish two separate periods as two different people or simply not to confuse Mexica with Mexican. Thus the Aztec label was applied to the people who founded Tenochtitlán to separate them from the “new” Mexican identity. 

This strategy may have also influenced many Mexicans to identify as Mestizos, perhaps to put less recognition on their indigenous side, which has created some paradoxes. The reality is every nation has indeed a form of mixture or outside influence, especially now in the 21st century and globalization effects. The American perspective also greatly ignores this native heritage as Mexicans in the USA are currently labeled as Latino and Hispanic, both of which are words of European origin. Ironically, Mexico is still associated with the Aztecs as part of the national identity and symbols as seen in Olympic or sporting competitions, but when asking the average Mexican about their heritage, they will identify as Mestizo.

As mentioned, we know that Mexico is indeed a melting pot, but the hard question that needs to be addressed is whether this devalues the Indigenous ancestry. Does one favor Spanish over Náhuatl, or the other 67 nationally recognized Indigenous languages of Mexico? Did this all stem from the term Aztec replacing Mexica?  The hundreds of Indigenous cultures both past and present of Mexico, especially the Mexica, undoubtedly had tremendous influence on Mexican identity and foundation. This is undoubtedly true when the word Mexico is a Náhuatl word.

Best Practices

After discussing the evolution of how Aztec has been used over the centuries, we must come to the realization how to use these terms, Mexica and Aztec, and at the same be flexible.  We should understand that the conquest and early colonial period did destroy a lot of Mesoamerican literature, and only a limited number of codices and accounts survived. There were sources created after the conquest under Spanish guidance, but some truths were forgotten and many interpretations are left to be told. Scholars of the past like Alexander von Humboldt were a byproduct of their time and only had limited sources.  In the 21st century, academia has grown and is more accessible. Modern sources have much better critical thinking and scientific methods than in the past.

As mentioned before most modern scholars will recognize Mexica, but due to the legacy of Aztec it has become institutionalized and accepted. Well-known Mexican archaeologist Eduardo Matos-Moctezuma once explained the word Aztec as a convenience, "The Aztecs — who knew themselves as the Mexica, but will for convenience, be referred to in this book as the Aztecs" (Matos-Moctezuma 9). At the same we must also take into consideration some scholars use it as an umbrella term for all the Central Mexican Nahua people.

It is essential, however, to recognize all the historical Náhuatl-speaking people and not be overshadowed by the Mexica. All these cultures played a major role in shaping Mesoamerican history. As explained by historian James Lockhart, the Náhuatl-speaking people of Central Mexico were divided into groups, states, and their ethnic origin was sometimes independent or under the dominance of another group. However, they were related or united by a language. Lockhart prefers the term Nahua over Aztec because the modern descendants of these people use this identity in Mexico. The term Aztec has major disadvantages and creates a false idea of Náhuatl unity, (Lockhart 1). Due to their common origin story and shared language, this is perhaps why they get confused as the same culture or people.

Recognizing the Legacy of the Mexicas

From these considerations we can see how identity has changed and can create confusion. As academia continues to evolve, the future may allow Mexica to be more commonly used with more public awareness. Until this happens, we should understand not everyone is aware of the history of the word Aztec. We can still use the terms interchangeably but recognize Mexica as the correct preference of the Tenochas identity. This could also allow people to further recognize the legacy of the Mexicas within modern Mexican identity along with the other many past and current Indigenous cultures of Mexico.

Bibliography

Clavijero, Francisco  Javier. “Historia Antigua de México.” El Libro Total - La Biblioteca digital de América. Accessed October 19, 2024. https://www.ellibrototal.com/ltotal/?t=1&d=5006_5010_1_1_5006.

Gibson. The Aztecs under Spanish rule. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1964. 

Humboldt, Alexander von. Vues des cordillères et monuments des peuples indigènes de l’amérique par al. de humboldt. Paris: Schoell, 1816. (https://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1824_HumboldtVue_A3000.1.pdf)

León-Portilla (ed), Miguel. The Broken Spears. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

León-Portilla, Miguel IX. Los “aztecas”, disquisiciones sobre un gentilicio, p. 239-246 Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2010 (https://historicas.unam.mx/publicaciones/publicadigital/libros/obras_leon_portilla/545/545_05_10_aztecas.pdf)

Lockhart, James. The Nahuas after the conquest: A social and cultural history of the Indians of central Mexico, sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1992.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo. The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlán. London: Thames and Hudson, 1998.

Prescott, William H. The Conquest of Mexico, Vol. 1. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1922.

Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñón, Arthur J. O. Anderson, Susan Schroeder, and Wayne Ruwet. Codex Chimalpahin Vol 1. Norman, Okla: University of Oklahoma Press, 2016.