The term Mexicas or rather Mexica is that by which the Aztèques indicated themselves (preferably at the end “azteca” designating these people before the appearance of their empire) in XVIe century, and by which the other people mésoaméricains as well as the Spaniards indicated besides. The term “Aztec” was popularized as from the XVIIe century by scholars like Francisco Javier Clavijero, and especially by the publication in 1844 of the famous book of William H. Prescott “The History off the Conquest off Mexico City”. The term “Azteca” existed indeed in XVIe century, but only to indicate Mexica during their migration starting from a mythical place called Aztlan.

Say from the start that in word “Mexicas” “S” is redundant, since in Nahuatl “Mexica” is already the plural form of the word “Mexicatl”, which designates the inhabitant of Mexico City Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec nation. Besides one employs also the expression “Mexica Tenochca”. The etymology of the word “Mexica” is far from being clear. The French mesoamericanist Christian Duverger endeavoured to see there more clearly. The chroniclers of XVIe century do not agree between them on the origin of the mot. According to some, it would derive from the name of a historical character of the time of the migration, while others speak about people called the “Mexitli”, whose the name would derive from the city. Here one of these versions, such as it is brought back by Bernardino de Sahagún:

“ This denomination of Mexicatl said in the past Mecitl, made of me or metl, which means Maguey and citli, hare. That should thus be written Mecicatl. It is by changing C into X that one made Mexicatl by corruption. With saying the old ones, the cause of this name comes from what Mexicans: i.e. Mexica/Aztèques while arriving in this country had as a chief or named lord Mecitl, which one had called citli (or Hare) at the time of his birth. As elsewhere one gave him for cradle a large sheet of maguey, one called it from now on Mecitl like saying: man raised in this sheet of maguey. ”

Duverger points out that there does not exist prehispanic Glyphe to indicate Mexico City (one employs that which indicates Tenochtitlan) and suspects Mexica of having wanted to occult the origin of their own name. It leaves the etymology “metzli” (the moon) + “xictli” (the center) + “Co” (particle which indicates a place), which should give “Mexicco” if one follows the rules of formation of the made up words in Nahuatl. If one takes account of the inaccuracy of the orthography at the time colonial, the word “Mexico City” is compatible with this etymology. Duverger in addition was interested in the name Otomi of Mexico City. Otomi are an extremely old group, which occupied formerly most of central Mexico. In their Mexico City language is called “amadetzânâ”, which means “in the middle of the moon”. A lunar/watery connotation is more compatible with the system of thought otomi than with the Aztec system of thought to the solar connotations.

Double name “Mexico City Tenochtitlan”, Duverger draws the conclusion that, as opposed to what the Aztec ones would have liked to make believe, they would not have founded the city (what seems to confirm the archaeological excavations). “Tenochtitlan” is the true Aztec name of the city. The Aztec ones would have joined it with the old “nahuatlized” toponym otomi, either that this one was already fixed by the use, or which it is about a form of syncretism whose Aztec ones are usual. Later they would have endeavoured to invent an etymology compatible with the Aztec official ideology, installation by Tlacaelel.

Random links:

Archipelago of Izu | Theil-of-Brittany | Robert Wentworth | Lirio | Intercultural mediation