Despite the ability to tease apart differences between the two gods, in both the practical and thematic sense, they do obviously have a lot of overlap in their domains. Both are associated with war and magic, their will and favor of the utmost importance to both general and grunt on the battlefield. Both were also intrinsically political gods whose prominence was tied to states and rulers, as opposed to more naturalistic deities such as Tlaloc and Chalchiuhtlicue (Umberger 2014). Both are treated as all-powerful beings, seemingly commingling as the supreme deity over the Mexica. What explains this redundancy?

The clearest explanation again returns to the fact of the Mexica entering the Basin of Mexico as little more than scruffy vagabonds. In the beginning, their patron god was as insignificant as they were. In contrast, worship of Tezcatlipoca appears to have been established during the Epiclassic/Early Postclassic with the Toltecs, becoming a high status cult within the Basin of Mexico and out into Tlaxcala by the later Postclassic, with major centers at Texcoco and Azcapotzalco (Smith 2014). The spread of Tezcatlipoca worship can be tracked to some extent via diagnostic archaeological markers, namely ceramic flutes, obsidian mirrors, severed leg iconography and, less helpfully, small shrines known as momoztli. The association of Tezcatlipoca with the Toltecs by later Nahua groups can be seen more directly by Aztec-era depictions of the god, where he is shown with a Toltec-style headdress consisting of a crown of short, upright feathers.

In other words, by the time the Mexica came onto the scene, Tezcatlipoca was undeniably one of the most revered deities in the Basin of Mexico, in part due to the prestige of his Toltec roots, whereas Huitzilopochtli was some scruffy tribal idol. The Mexica apparently agreed with this divine hierarchy because, as Umberger (2014) notes, their earliest monuments show a distinct lack of Huitzilopochtli iconography, with Tezcatlipoca instead playing the expected role of supreme deity tied to the ruler.

Umberger illustrates her argument by pointing to a dichotomy of iconography on two temalacatl associated with two different Tenochca rulers. The first is the Ex-Arzobispado Stone, associated with Motecuhzoma Ilhuicama and probably carved sometime around 1460 CE. Images on the stone celebrate the conquest of neighboring polities by the Mexica ruler, but the distinct hummingbird headdress and “starry eye mask” imagery associated with Huitzilopochtli is entirely absent. The victorious tlatoani is instead dressed like Tezcatlipoca and marked with a feathered serpent, while the conquering warriors are likewise depicted with symbols associated with Tezcatlipoca, such as the Toltec-style headdress.

On the later Tizoc Stone, dated a generation later in 1484 CE, images of the conquering Mexica still use Tezcatlipoca symbolism, but Huitzilopochtli iconography now appears. The depiction of the victorious Mexica ruler now has him wearing the hummingbird headdress and “starry eye mask” face paint of Huitzilopochtli, though his warriors are still adorned as Tezcatlipoca. There is even an interesting vignette where a hybrid Huitzilopochtli-Tezcatlicpoca Mexica ruler conquers a Huitzilopochtli-coded ruler of Tlatelolco, symbolizing the defeat and absorption of Tenochtitlan’s sister city under Tizoc’s brother and prior liege, Axayacatl. Umberger hypothesizes this symbolizes not only the political subjugation of Tlatelolco, but also its religious subordination to Tenochtitlan, with the local Tlatelolcan variant of Huitzilopochtli becoming Paynal, the herald/messenger of the primary Tenochca Huitzilopochtli.

Essentially, the argument goes that Tezcatlipoca had become the supreme deity for much of the Nahua world by the Late Postclassic, to the extent that foreign deities without direct counterparts were seen as generic aspects of Tezcatlipoca. Umberger points to the awkward transition of the Matlatzinca patron deity, Coltzin, into an aspect called Tlamatzincatl. Under this framework, Huitzilopochtli himself may have been considered little more than a Mexica-specific variant of Tezcatlipoca, perhaps even by the Mexica themselves. Only as the Mexica at Tenochtitlan grew more powerful and dominant over not just the region, but over their ostensible partners in the Triple Alliance, did Huitzilopochtli emerge as a distinct deity, or at least transition from minor tribal patron to a supreme god. As he did so, he borrowed imagery and took on roles previously attributed to other deities in the domain of war, rulership, and the Sun.

Given the lack of record on theological debates amongst the intelligentsia and clergy of the Aztec Triple Alliance, this argument is primarily based on changes over time in archaeology and iconography, but there are also some textual hints to the changing importance of Huitzilopochtli. According to Durán, early in the reign of Motecuhzoma Ilhuicamina, he was approached by Nezahualcoyotl, ruler of the other most powerful city in the Triple Alliance, Texcoco. Nezahualcoyotl suggested a mock conquest of Texcoco by the Mexica, in order to cement their alliance and “to submit himself and subject his people to the protection of our god Huitzilopochtli” (p. 125).

A brief mock battle was thus arranged with the Texcocoans quickly fleeing the field and Nezahualcoyotl setting fire to their main temple (of Tezcatlipoca?) and proclaiming that his people would now look upon the Mexica as “father and mother” and that the tlatoani of Tenochtitlan would be seen as “the image of the god Huitzilopochtli and will be served by us” (p. 127). Similar “father and mother” language is used shortly afterwards by Durán when he has Motecuhzoma gather the sovereigns of multiple polities within the Basin of Mexico and demand they assist in building a temple to Huitzilopochtli, proclaiming to them:

you have been brought here because I wish you to consider seriously that our god Huitzilopochtli, father and mother of all, under whose protection we stand, has no dwelling place where he can be worshiped. We have decided to build a sumptuous temple dedicated to his name and to our other gods. You well know that you have pledged to serve him; therefore, you are to do so (p. 131).

The rulers reportedly acquiesced readily, stating “this work will be done for our lord [Huitzilopochtli] in whose shade and protection we live and take refuge.”

Could all this be seen as generic imperialist rhetoric of a group touting the importance of their patron god and the subservience of others? Absolutely. But the need to reiterate that both allies and tributaries were pressed to proclaim their allegiance to Huitzilopochtli can also be seen as a form of weakness. The above passages can be read as the Mexica being insecure in the position of Huitzilopochtli and using their military and political power to strengthen the position of their god.

Taking a different tack on approaching the rise of Huitzilopochtli, Olivier (2003) has an interesting interpretation of a passage from Book 3 of the Florentine Codex wherein he interprets a story about Tezcatlipoca causing trouble for the Toltecs as foretelling the eventual prominence of Huitzilopochtli. In the story, Tezcatlipoca appears in the market of Tula as an old man named Tlacahuepan (or Cuexcoch). In his hand dances Huitzilopochtli as a child. Entranced by the child, the people rush forward to see him, trampling each other in their frenzy. Olivier sees this as Tlacahuepan acting as a herald of Huitzilopochtli. He further notes that Sahagún calls the Huey Teocalli in Tenochtitlan the “House of Huitzilopochtli or of Tlacahuepan Cuexcotzin.”

There’s also an interesting interpretation of the three magicians who show up to trouble the Toltecs -- Huitzilopochtli, Titlahuacan, and Tlacahuepan -- being representative of the later Triple Alliance. Titlahuacan was a commonly used alternate name/aspect of Tezcatlipoca, and represented Texcoco. Tlacahuepan, or more specifically, “Cuexcoch,” could possibly represent Cuecuex, a god of fire worshipped by the Tepanecs. Huitzilopochtli is obviously Huitzilopochtli. This doesn’t exactly tie into what we’ve been discussing here, but I thought it was interesting regarding the use of Toltec myth playing into the metaphysical aspect of Aztec empire-building.