30 May 2025 / 10 House
Article suitable for older students
Find out more‘You are no longer called Aztecs. You are Mexica’
9th Mar 2021
‘You are no longer called Aztecs. You are Mexica’ - Huitzilopochtli
Just what IS all this about ‘Aztecs’ v ‘Mexica’? Who started it? Did they ever call themselves Aztecs at all? Who first called them Aztecs and why? Does it matter? We try to unpick the whole issue, by going to some of the key primary sources to get the answer... (Written by Ian Mursell/Mexicolore)
Most modern sources and scholars tell us it was the German Alexander von Humboldt (Vues des Cordillères et monuments des peuples indigènes de l’Amérique, 1810) and American William H. Prescott (History of the Conquest of Mexico, 1843) who ‘popularised’ the term ‘Aztecs’ in the 19th century. But they weren’t the first: their predecessor was the Mexican Jesuit teacher, scholar and historian Francisco Javier Clavijero Echegaray who, decades earlier, in his Historia Antigua de México (first published - in Italian - in 1780-81, and translated into English in 1787) wrote (see pic 1):-
’The Aztecas or Mexicans, who were the last people who settled in Anahuac [roughly, the whole of central Mexico], and are the chief subject of our history, lived until about the year 1160 of the vulgar era, in Aztlan...’
Clavijero’s Historia has been described as ‘a superb synthesis of the best available information on its subject’ in its day (Keen, 1971: 299). Von Humboldt cites it on the second page of his book, and Prescott in notes to the first page of his opening chapter.
Prescott leaves his readers in no doubt as to Clavijero’s importance: ‘He has, probably, examined the subject with more thoroughness and fidelity than most of his countrymen’ (1843: 419) and specifically declares that the Historia created something of a ‘popular interest’ in Mexican antiquities (Keen, 1971: 299). The very beginning of Prescott’s first chapter opens with ‘The country of the ancient Mexicans, or Aztecs as they were called’ (1843: 9). Von Humboldt refers early on in Vues... to ‘When the Mexica or Aztecs... arrived...’ (2013: 42), constantly mixing and matching the two terms.
Why is this so important? One of Mexico’s greatest historians and scholars, Alfredo López Austin, declares that the use of the term ‘Aztecs’ - for which he blames von Humboldt - is at best ambiguous and at worst constitutes ‘historical impropriety’ (2001: 68).
As we make clear on our homepage, whilst the name ‘Aztec’ is widely used in education and scholarly literature, historically the ‘Aztecs’ called themselves the ’Mexica’ in their Nahuatl language, and today we at Mexicolore now use the two terms interchangeably with the aim of eventually weaning students off ‘Aztecs’.
McEwan and López Luján summarise the position as simply as they can (2009: 21): ‘The Mexica, comprising the Nahuatl-speaking Tenochcas and Tlatelolcas, never at any point referred to themselves or their city-states, let alone their empire, as “Aztec”. They simply considered themselves as ethnic Nahuas - speakers of Nahuatl - like many of their neighbours. At the time of the Spanish conquest they were likewise referred to by the Spaniards as Mexica’. They blame both von Humboldt and Prescott for promoting ‘Aztecs’.
Though not explicit in his writing, Clavijero logically associates ‘Aztecas’ with their mythical homeland Aztlan. His primary source for this is the work of Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc who, in his Crónica mexicana (c.1598) wrote, with absolute clarity:-
’Their home was the place named Aztlan; hence their name is Azteca’ (Codex Chimalpahin, 1997: 69). And Tezozomoc would have known, as Keen (1971: 132) explains: ‘An authentic native voice sounds in the Crónica mexicana of Fernando Alvarado Tezozomoc... son of Diego de Alvarado Huanitzin’, who served as tlatoani (Speaker or ruler) of Tenochtitlan under the Spaniards. Tezozomoc, grandson of emperor Moteuczoma Xocoyotzin, ‘had access to a rich hoard of picture writings, oral information, and written narratives’. Our story is muddied here by the relatively recent (1983) discovery that the Crónica mexicana, just like Tezozomoc’s Crónica mexicáyotl, was actually authored by Nahua historian Domingo de San Antón Muñón Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, who ‘credits both Tezozomoc and himself for the information in the “Mexican History or Chronicle”’ (Schroeder, 1997: 10).
‘Aztecs’ is not an outright disrespectful term, but according to Indigenous histories it actually refers to the overlords of Aztlan, said to have ‘badly mistreated’ the commoners who worked for them, specifically the people known as Mexitin*, who appeal to their gods for liberation from tyranny (León-Portilla 2000: 308). So the term ‘Aztecs’ does have historical connections with the original homeland Aztlan from where departed a total of eight (possibly seven) Nahuatl-speaking clans, in or around the 12th century. We can show this by referring to two important early 16th century documents, the Codex Boturini (also known as the Tira de la peregrinación) and the Codex Aubin. The former is - bar some glosses added later - purely pictographic, the latter also carries text written in Nahuatl (see main picture, above). Telling the story of the migration of the ‘Aztecs’ from Aztlan to the Basin of Mexico - spanning the years 1168-1325 (even these dates are not certain) - the ‘Aztecs’ are referred to both in glyph form (theirs being the fire/water glyph, meaning ‘war’) and in the written script.
The fire-water glyph (explained in the ‘Symbol for War’ link, below) features prominently atop the main temple at the heart of Aztlan on the opening page (pic 5) of the Codex Boturini (follow the second link below for a detailed look).
On the second page of the Boturini (pic 6) the other clans are named by the glyphs tied to their temples and to human figures, and we see a set of footprints marking the journey of the ‘Aztecs’, centre stage carrying their tribal god Huitzilopochtli in a sacred bundle on the leader’s back. (Actually, it’s not yet strictly Huitzilopochtli at this point [!], it’s Mexitin* deity Tetzauhteotl - Johansson 2007). On the next page (pic 7) Tetzauhteotl/Huitzilopochtli instructs the ‘Aztecs’ to leave their companion clans (who all speak the same language) and to ‘go it alone’. Tears are shed all round. On the fourth page (pic 8), not long after leaving Aztlan, a crucial event takes place: Huitzilopochtli (now the real deal...) re-names the lineage ‘Mexica’, with the immortal words In axcan aocmo amotoca yn amazteca ye ammexica ‘From now on you are not called Azteca, you are Mexica’. To underline the change, they receive distinctive markings, symbols and attributes: the bow and arrow, bird-carrying hunting net, balls of feathers in the ears, and a horizontal line painted across the face. Perhaps ominously, we also see (even though no obsidian or flint knife is visible) the first human sacrifice take place, on the far right of the page. It is of a woman.
Unfortunately, things get more complicated still. Just to give a flavour of the difficulties, by the time our ‘Aztecs’ arrive in the Basin of Mexico and proceed to found their new home, Tenochtitlan, the Indigenous histories written by Tezozomoc and Chimalpahin write in terms of the ‘Teochichimeca Azteca Chicomoztoca Mexitin who emerged and came from the great province of Aztlan Chicomoztoc’ (Codex Chimalpahin 1997: 179). Gosh! Who ARE all these people?! At the risk of gross simplification, Chicomoztoc (‘Place of Seven Caves’ - pic 10) is an alternative (‘second’) name for their mythical place of origin; the Chichimeca, a proud nomadic people from the north of Mexico, supposedly ‘barbarian’ ancestors of the ‘Aztecs’ who ‘seem to have spent most of their time forming alliances with others and deciding when and where to break them’ (Townsend, 2019: 28) (incidentally, the Tenochca specifically saw themselves as a people as Mexica-Chichimeca); and the Mexitin are essentially the Mexica.
The real problem here is that we’re dealing with a potpourri of sometimes conflicting histories, rulers, ethnic groups, chroniclers, each pushing their own account and agenda, each trying to claim their people’s descendancy from the acclaimed and noble Toltecs (‘Mexico’s first Nahua empire’).
The name Mexica (singular, Mexicatl) eventually came into general use after the founding of the twin cities Mexico-Tenochtitlan and Mexico-Tlatelolco.
The founders of Tenochtitlan were, then, a mixed bag of Nahuatl-speaking clans - covered by the Toltec term calpulli or communities in Nahuatl - nothing like the homogeneous ‘Aztec’ society that is so often loosely suggested.
In summary, ‘In a few texts that discuss the exodus from Aztlan, we find the word Azteca. But nowhere in any of the rich sources that include any natural speech do we find the people we are interested in referring to themselves as “Azteca”. It simply didn’t happen. Only when speaking of their ancestors emerging from Chicomoztoc might you find them saying, in effect, “They were people from Aztlan.” And the instances even of that are rare’ (Townsend 2021).
Clear now? We doubt it...
Bottom line: •Aztecs not disastrous, but very far from ideal; •Mexica much better and more politically correct, but still limited to a specific group and some way from being a clear-cut, simple answer; •Nahua - best, but really most appropriate for post-invasion; •Aztec-Mexica or even better (see Aguilar-Moreno, 2017: 213) •Mexica-Aztecs for pre-invasion, RECOMMENDED!
Sources:-
• Aguilar-Moreno, Manuel (2017) ‘El Coatecalli, los dioses extranjeros y la apropiación de espacios sagrados por los mexicas-aztecas’ in Del saber ha hecho su razón de ser... Homenaje a Alfredo López Austin, I (Eds. Eduardo Matos Moctezuma & Ángela Ochoa), Secretaría de Cultura/INAH/UNAM, Mexico City
• Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo de San Antón Muñón (1997) Codex Chimalpahin Vol. 1, translated & edited by Arthur J.O. Anderson & Susan Schroeder, University of Oklahoma Press (includes the Crónica mexicana by Fernando Alvarado Tezozomoc)
• Humboldt, Alexander von (2012) Views of the Cordilleras and Monuments of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas - a critical edition edited by Vera M. Kutzinski & Ottmar Ette, University of Chicago Press
• Keen, Benhamin (1971) The Aztec Image in Western Thought, Rutgers University Press
• León-Portilla, Miguel (2000) ‘Los aztecas - disquisiciones sobre un gentilicio’ Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl, no. 31, 307-313
• López Austin, Alfredo (2001) ‘Aztec’, entry in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Mesoamerican Cultures edited by David Carrasco, Oxford University Press
• Johansson K., Patrick (2007) ‘Tira de la Peregrinación (Códice Boturini)’, Arqueología Mexicana, special edition no. 26, December
• McEwan, Colin & López Luján, Leonardo (2009) ‘Introduction’ in Moctezuma Aztec Ruler, British Museum Press, London
• Prescott, William H. (1922) The Conquest of Mexico, Vol. 1, London, Chatto & Windus
• Schroeder, Susan (1997) ‘Introduction’, in Codex Chimalpahin (see above)
• Townsend, Camilla (2019) Fifth Sun: A New History of the Aztecs, Oxford University Press
• --- (2021), personal communication 11/3/21.
Picture sources:-
• Main and pix 1, 4 & 9: public domain
• Pix 2 & 10: images from Wikipedia
• Pic 3: montage by Mexicolore
• Pix 5-8: images of the Codex Boturini scanned from a hand-drawn facsimile, private collection; graphics by Mexicolore.
Aztec limerick no. 23 (Ode to Aztlan)
They seemed like a god-chosen clan
’Mexitin’ on leaving Aztlan.
In myth, great truth-seekers -
And known as ‘Mexicas’ -
They founded great Tenochtitlan.
Comments (1)
Diana
5th Jan 2024
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59755/59755-h/59755-h.htm
”The most important contribution, of late years, to the early history of Mexico is the Historia antigua of the Lic. Don. Mariano Veytia, published in the city of Mexico, in 1836. This scholar was born of an ancient and highly respectable family at Puebla, 1718. After finishing his academic education, he went to Spain, where he was kindly received at court. He afterwards visited several other countries of Europe, made himself acquainted with their languages, {27and returned home well stored with the fruits of a discriminating observation and diligent study. The rest of his life he devoted to letters; especially to the illustration of the national history and antiquities. As the executor of the unfortunate Boturini, with whom he had contracted an intimacy in Madrid, he obtained access to his valuable collection of manuscripts in Mexico, and from them, and every other source which his position in society and his eminent character opened to him, he composed various works, none of which, however, except the one before us, has been admitted to the honors of the press. The time of his death is not given by his editor, but it was probably not later than 1780.
Veytia’s history covers the whole period from the first occupation of Anahuac to the middle of the fifteenth century, at which point his labors were unfortunately terminated by his death. In the early portion he has endeavored to trace the migratory movements and historical annals of the principal races who entered the country. Every page bears testimony to the extent and fidelity of his researches; and, if we feel but moderate confidence in the results, the fault is not imputable to him, so much as to the dark and doubtful nature of the subject. As he descends to later ages, he is more occupied with the fortunes of the Tezcucan than with those of the Aztec dynasty, which have been amply discussed by others of his countrymen. The premature close of his labors prevented him, probably, from giving that attention to the domestic institutions of the people he describes, to which they are entitled as the most important subject of inquiry to the historian. The deficiency has been supplied by his judicious editor, Orteaga, from other sources. In the early part of his work, Veytia has explained the chronological system of the Aztecs, but, like most writers preceding the accurate Gama, with indifferent success. As a critic, he certainly ranks much higher than the annalists who preceded him, and, when his own religion is not involved, shows a discriminating judgment. When it is, he betrays a full measure of the credulity which still maintains its hold on too many even of the well-informed of his countrymen. The editor of the work has given a very interesting letter from the Abbé Clavigero to Veytia, written when the former was a poor and humble exile, and in the tone of one addressing a person of high standing and literary eminence. Both were employed on the same subject. The writings of the poor abbé, published again and again, and translated into various languages, have spread his fame throughout Europe; while the name of Veytia, whose works have been locked up in their primitive manuscript, is scarcely known beyond the boundaries of Mexico.”
Is it possible you’re mixing up Lic Don Mariano Veytia for Francisco Javier Clavijero?
Mexicolore
Thanks for sharing this, taken verbatim from the online edition of Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Mexico. We need further guidance on this...
‘You are no longer called Aztecs. You are Mexica’ - Huitzilopochtli
More Aztecs Home
- Welcome¡Bienvenidos!IN THE NEWS: Commemorations