Was there a name collectively agreed-upon by the residents, or were the concepts of countries and continents too much for primitive localized societies to grasp?
I know that Mexico City used to be Tenochtitlan while under the rule of Moctezuma II, but what about the country (now Mexico)? Are the countries of today just too big to be recognized and therefore ruled by the leaders of yore?
I think it probably translated to “Here,” referring to the local area and “There” which is where those abominable “other people” live who can’t talk right but sometimes have reasonable things to trade.
If I recall correctly, the Americas had more different and mutually incomprehensible language groups before the European invasion than any other area of the Earth. A common name for the continent (other than “The World of the Living” in whatever language) is highly unlikely.
I am prepared to admit wrongness if someone here knows better.
There was no general term for areas as large as a continent in the Americas before the advent of Europeans. In fact, the whole concept of “continent” is a European one. I doubt there were general names for geographic areas beyond those ruled by a particular group, or perhaps areas defined by a major river valley, mountain range, or Basin.
The area ruled by the Aztecs was much smaller than present-day Mexico. The so-called “Aztec Empire” was actually a confederacy of several Nahuatl-speaking groups which dominated conquered tributary areas. The leading group at the time of the Spanish Conquest was the Culhua Mexica, in alliance with the Tepenaca and the Acolhuaque, so that the areas dominated by this group could be referred to as the “Mexican Empire.” However, I do not know if there actually was a general term to refer to this empire as a whole.
The Incas gave the name of their much larger Empire in South America “Land of the Four Quarters” or the Tahuantinsuyu Empire. “Inca” was the name of the ruling group, and the vast majority of people in the Empire were not Inca.
I am certainly not an expert in this field and won’t pretend to be. In graduate school I took a wonderful class on socio-linguistics (and this was back in the 70s, so knowledge and theories have changed, I’m sure). We learned in that class that words come into existence only when there is a need for them (and the term “need” can be loosely defined here). The need might be simply because a group may have never encountered this “thing” before, and therefore it should have a name so one can communicate to others about it. It may require a name because of some social or political “need.” And new words can be created to catch attention, to stand out from the crowd or just because someone has an interest.
In simpler societies, terms are typically created out of necessity, to name a new object or fit an immediate cultural need. If objects could easily be lumped into one category without difficulty, they were. Correct me if this is wrong (and it might be), but we were taught that the term “maize” initially referred to a wide variety of domesticared grains, rather than just to the one we now call “corn.”
My guess is that the natives of the continents we now call North and South America approached this situation differently, depending upon their social and political approaches to others. Those groups (tribes, families, clans, societies, etc.) who were focused upon establishing settlements and staying there probably had no clear name for a continent, because they had no need to know that there was such a huge land mass under their feet. They had their homes and were part of the land, and they may have had a name for their immediate surroundings and adjacent areas.
Those groups who were nomadic may have had terms for the larger land area because they travelled to different locations to have their needs met. Those groups who were warring peoples, seeking to overtake other settlements, steal belongings from others and increase their gene pool by taking women and children from other groups into their own ranks, may have had words to the larger land mass. Those groups especially who had an interest in conquering and adding to their empires probably had the most interest in naming the land areas, although they may not have a name for an entire land mass (unless it ALL belonged to King Whateverhisnamewas).
A land mass itself usually has less importance than the political forces active within it. For example, the term Europe (or Europa) has been in use for centuries. But in and of itself it was a less useful term than understanding the political boundaries within it, such as “The Holy Roman Empire.” On our side of the ocean, living in North America has less meaning to me than living in the United States, although I know both are true. In addition, knowing that I live in the southwest US, in Arizona and in Phoenix all have special meanings to me, over and above being a US citizen.
Which brings up something of a pet peeve for me (sorry for detour here). In the USA, we call ourselves “Americans,” which is a technically true term. But this word does not denote us as US citizens. Canada residents can call themselves Canadians, Mexican citizens can call themselves Mexicans. Do we call ourselves “Statians?” “United Statians?” “Usalians?” ( Personally, I like that last one.)
I usually go for "Merkins, myself.
On a related note, if Mexico = Mexicans, shouldn’t Canada = Canadans? 
You have it backwards. “Corn” originally applied to all kinds of grains, including wheat, barley, etc. In the US it became restricted to maize, or “Indian corn.”
Some Latin Americans also like to make an issue of this, but IMO, since the name of the country is the United States of America, the usage is perfectly legitimate. There is really little confusion on this usage, since Latin Americans in general refer to themselves by the names of their countries, not as “Americans” in the sense of residents of the hemisphere. Oddly enough, although the word estadounidense exists, Latin Americans seem to prefer to refer to US citizens (and US citizens only) as norteamericanos, even though this does not technically distinguish them from Canadians (who are called canadenses) or for that matter from Mexicans or Panamanians, and thus is no real improvement over americano.
But “The Americas” is huge, encompassing 2 continents. That’s like saying Eurasia has many mutually incomprehensible language groups. If we look at languages per unit area of land, the honor of most linguistiically diverse area probably goes to New Guinea and it’s Papuan Langanges.
Bucky Fuller used “Usonian”. 
Yes, but TheLadyLion wasn’t talking about the history of the word “corn,” but about “maize.” I don’t know the etymology of that word, but I guess it’s very well possible that the pre-Columbian root out of which our word “maize” evolved was initially used to refer to a variety of different crops.
In the Caribbean, some of the islands today still have the names by which the Native Americans called them (or a Spanish/Dutch/French approximation of that one). Haiti is a good example, although I do not know if that’s the name of the area or the name of an important village/tribe or chieftain from pre-Columbian times. Another example is Jamaica.
Dominican Republic is also called Quisqueya, and Puerto Rico is called Borinquen (or Borikén). This is a webpage with some definitions
Maize is from Taino (Caribbean Indian language) where it apparently meant just the one plant.
Corn is an Old English word originally meaning “grain”. It’s related to the Latin word granum which also means “grain”.
As dtilque says, “maize” has always referred to just one crop. Amerindians had few real grain crops, and IIRC no others in the West Indies, where the word comes from. TheLadyLion just got the story backwards.
Not all of them are named Dan, just most of 'em.
You’re absolutely correct. My bad on that one. Correction well-taken here.
Panamá was originally the name of one small village near present day Panama City that eventually got applied to the entire Isthmus. If there was a general term for the region in pre-Columbian times it has not come down to us. There is a dispute whether “Panama” means “an abundance of fish,” “an abundance of butterflies,” or is the name of a common tree. It probably just means “a bunch of [something].”
Am I the only one bothered by the phrasing (and presumed underlying assumptions) here?
As several people have pointed out – there was no name for the continent, because there was no sense in which “continent” was a meaningful construct. No names of countries, because “countries” didn’t exist.
Does it bother no one that a merkin is a wig designed for a woman’s pubic area? Doncha think those who call us that are having a bit of a laugh at our expense? Personally, I’d prefer American, thankyouverymuch.
Why not go for the real thing. No point is settling for an imitation or substitute!
FYI a merkin is a sort of wig.
The Aztecs and Mayans had "countries’- empires even. So did a few of the NA tribes. But in general, you’re right. The common unit was ‘tribe’ as opposed to “nation” or country. A group of tribes was sometimes refered to with a word that would come close to "nations’, but AFAIK the natives had no word for the entire continent.
heh heh…sort of. I can’t get it to stay on my head tho.