Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica Polities and Power

3 And it came to pass in the commencement of the tenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Alma departed from thence and took his journey over into the land of Melek, on the west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness.

4 And he began to teach the people in the land of Melek according to the holy order of God, by which he had been called; and he began to teach the people throughout all the land of Melek.

5 And it came to pass that the people came to him throughout all the borders of the land which was by the wilderness side. And they were baptized throughout all the land;

6 So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed thence, and traveled three days’ journey on the north of the land of Melek; and he came to a city which was called Ammonihah.

7 Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them; and thus it was with the land of Ammonihah.

8 And it came to pass that when Alma had come to the city of Ammonihah he began to preach the word of God unto them.

9 Now Satan had gotten great hold upon the hearts of the people of the city of Ammonihah; therefore they would not hearken unto the words of Alma.

10 Nevertheless Alma labored much in the spirit, wrestling with God in mighty prayer, that he would pour out his Spirit upon the people who were in the city; that he would also grant that he might baptize them unto repentance.

11 Nevertheless, they hardened their hearts, saying unto him: Behold, we know that thou art Alma; and we know that thou art high priest over the church which thou hast established in many parts of the land, according to your tradition; and we are not of thy church, and we do not believe in such foolish traditions.

12 And now we know that because we are not of thy church we know that thou hast no power over us; and thou hast delivered up the judgment-seat unto Nephihah; therefore thou art not the chief judge over us.

13 Now when the people had said this, and withstood all his words, and reviled him, and spit upon him, and caused that he should be cast out of their city, he departed thence and took his journey towards the city which was called Aaron.

While the Book of Mormon is largely a religious text, replete with lengthy sermons that would be quite at home in nineteenth century America, it does contain enough background historical information for readers to draw reasonable conclusions about what kind of society is therein described. One of the more productive avenues of explorations concerns the probable level of social complexity as well as the type of power wielded by polities. Before exploring this avenue, it is necessary to provide some basic information about different levels of social complexity.

In his book The Ancient Maya, page 58, Arthur Demarest provides the following:

Box 2 Traditional typologies of “level” of political complexity in human societies

Traditionally archaeologists and anthropologists sought to classify ancient or modern societies in order to facilitate comparison and discussion. The most popular traditional typologies have been those proposed by Morton Fried based on the degree of stratification, i.e. social inequality, in societies, and by Elman Service based on the degree of political and economic integration of societies.

Service: integration typology

Bands: small, loosely integrated groups of hunters and gatherers that possess a common territory in which they move nomadically. They have few differences in wealth or status and are characterized by reciprocal economic relations. Integration is through kinship or marriage.

Tribes: Larger societies, often with agricultural and/or pastoral economies, living in permanent (sedentary) locations. Tribes are often multi-settlement societies integrated by theoretical descent groups and voluntary association organizations (for example, warrior clubs, religious cults, fraternal organizations, etc.)

Chiefdoms: Often larger societies in which social integration is facilitated by the existence of prestigious leaders who direct warfare and storage or redistribution of food. Individuals are ranked in their status according to their degree of kinship relationship to the chief. Chiefdoms sometimes have ceremonial centers as the focus of religious activities, redistribution, and social integration.

States: Societies with highly integrated, organized, and centralized leadership with a governing body or rulers. The power of the ruler is backed by coercive force, law, and/or religious sanctions.

Fried: stratification typology

Egalitarian societies: Simple societies with as many positions of status as there are people to fill them. Wealth, status, and power are acquired, not inherited. There are relatively small differences in wealth, and economic relations are reciprocal in nature.

Ranked societies: Societies in which there are fewer positions of status than individuals to fill them. In some cases there are a fixed number of offices, but the competition to fill them is not entirely hereditary.

Economic differences are somewhat restricted by expectations of redistribution by the societies’ leaders.

Stratified societies: Societies in which positions of status are fixed and largely hereditary. A class structure and coercive force maintain these differences.

[The state]: A special function institution of some stratified societies that legitimizes stratification through governing bodies, laws, and police structures to maintain internal order and control class conflict.

Current debate on evolutionary typologies

More recent discussion in archaeology has been highly critical of such universally applied typologies, since they ignore many characteristics, mask internal variability in societies, and, arguably, impose an ethnocentric, evolutionary scheme. Others argue that these designations are useful in practice, if only as loose, broad, comparative designations.

Alternative approaches include multivariate assessments of societies based on many different variables, including degree of inequality, heterogeneity, centralization, and other traits. Many contemporary “postprocessual” theorists reject linear evolutionary typologies of any kind as stereotyping and potentially racist generalizations that pigeonhole societies into a Western materialist presumed hierarchy of development.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), in the case of the rise of Maya civilization, such typological, terminological, and epistemological debates seldom arise; the data on the early development of lowland Maya civilization is currently so poor that it virtually defies synthesis and interpretation. The earliest Preclassic societies in the Maya lowlands are identified primarily by ceramic deposits. The first sites with public architecture (eg Nakbe and Cerros) were left by societies that were already at a fairly high level of complexity (however that might be designated). Here terms such as bands, chiefdoms, or states are used as only very broad, convenient descriptive terms.

The controversy over terminology will not have a great impact on the following discussion, since the majority of the discussion is focused on the demonstrative power of the polities in question, rather than the specific attached label. I will only use the specific labels when the evidence is clearly supportive of such use.

There is an overwhelming amount of information that can be considered in this topic, both originating from the Book of Mormon text as well as the writings of Mesoamerican scholars. I cannot possibly address it all, so this should be regarded as only a summary of significant points. I will approach this essay using the chronological sequence presented in the Book of Mormon as a general guideline, primarily focusing on the Nephite time-table, due the fact that more information is available on this time period both in the Book of Mormon and in Mesoamerican studies. Once again, I will attempt to frame this discussion in terms of contextual archaeology and probability.

Many of the Book of Mormon verses I cite contain anachronisms, such as the use of tents, but since this is not the primary focus of this section, I will not note each and every anachronism.

In the Beginning…

The Lehites reached the New World in approximately BC 589. The text makes no mention of the Lehites meeting the pre-existing “others”, the indigenous natives, but the foundation of the Limited Geography Theory demands their existence. If one accepts the reasoning of Dr. Sorenson on this issue, the Lehites would actually have met two groups of pre-existing others within a short time frame. The first group constituted the “others” who chose to follow Nephi:

1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cry much unto the Lord my God, because of the anger of my brethren.

2 But behold, their anger did increase against me, insomuch that they did seek to take away my life.

3 Yea, they did murmur against me, saying: Our younger brother thinks to rule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people.

4 Now I do not write upon these plates all the words which they murmured against me. But it sufficeth me to say, that they did seek to take away my life.

5 And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me.

6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words.

7 And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. And after we had journeyed for the space of many days we did pitch our tents.

8 And my people would that we should call the name of the place Nephi; wherefore, we did call it Nephi.

9 And all those who were with me did take upon them to call themselves the people of Nephi.

While it does not seem necessary to infer unnamed indigenous natives as the “others” due to the possibility of unnamed spouses or offspring, this is one of the primary evidences of the pre-existing indigenous native “others” that Book of Mormon scholars cite. It is impossible to conclude how many “others” were involved at this particular juncture.

However, an additional meeting point, largely ignored, is required due to Mesoamerican history. Verse 8 informs us that Nephi and his followers called the place where they pitched their tents “Nephi”, which would later be known as the “City of Nephi”. Dr. Sorenson offers Kaminaljuyu as a likely candidate for the City of Nephi, and I know of no other suggestions. Kaminaljuyu, by BC 588, was already a well -established polity by this point, with enough political capital to regulate the public building project of canals.

By 700 B.C.E., Kaminaljuyu had constructed an irrigation canal fed by a nearby lake. In the rainier tropical lowlands, however, massive irrigation systems were not usually necessary, although arid northern Yucatan could have used them, if only they had had the water to do so. Small-scale systems of ditches and drains have been identified at many sites in the southern lowlands; canals sometimes encircled sacred centers such as that at Cerros, serving perhaps both agricultural and defensive purposes.

One of the most powerful Preclassic cities, Kaminaljuyu occupied the highland valley now occupied by Guatemala City. Situated only 20 kilometers (12 miles) from one of the most important obsidian sources in the Maya region, Kaminaljuyu grew from a small Middle Preclassic Period settlement into the dominant city in the southern region during the Late Preclassic. Its construction included extensive canals and earthen pyramids; its rulers were buried in some of the wealthiest tombs then known; and its art included many stelae in the Izapan style. At the beginning of the Early Classic Period, the city contracted and was depopulated until the central Mexican city of Teotihuacan probably conquered it in the fourth century C.E. and used it as a base for its trade operations in the region. The city was occupied into the Postclassic Period, but after the Early Classic period, it never rose again to be a major power. It was abandoned by the time of the Spanish Conquest. (p 109)

New centers emerged in the central Guatemala highlands at this period (middle preclassic), probably because the flat plateaus became more habitable due to diminishing volcanic activity. All these new settlements were well situated for trade. Kamnaljuyu in the Valley of Guatemala, for example, could control nearby obsidian sources, but it was also in an enviable position to command trade between the Caribbean and the Pacific coast through the river routes in the Motagua Valley, and through the highland pass down to the Pacific. Cacao, obsidian, and jade were part of the valuable trade that would expand in the Late Preclassic, making Kaminaljuyu flourish into one of the most important cities of that period. By 700 B.C.E., Kaminaljuyu already had constructed a major irrigation canal, and by 500 B.C.E., it began carving freestanding stone slabs called stelae. (page 30)

Kaminaljuyu grew from a small center in the Valley of Guatemala in 500 B.C.E. to a capital city dominating the terminal Preclassic period. Although the sprawl of modern Guatemala City has destroyed much of the ancient site and made a careful reconstruction of its development impossible, Kaminaljuyu in its final phase (Early Classic) was a city of more than 200 earthen and adobe-plastered mounds in contrast to approximately 80 at Izapa. The majority of the mounds dated to the Late Preclassic period. Some were 20 meters (66 feet) high and once supported adobe or wooden temples with thatched roofs. One massive structure, judging from the rich tombs it contained, must have been an ancestor shrine dedicated to deceased rulers. An artificial canal, built c. 400 B.C.E. to replace one from the Middle Preclassic Period, fed a vast irrigation system. Great platforms with temples and what may have been a palace courtyard complex were constructed; stelae, some almost 2 meters (6 feet) tall, were carved in low relief, with hieroglyphic inscriptions.

Kaminaljuyu was more powerful and wealthier than any other city in the southern region during this period. Kaminaljuyu influences can be seen at other highland sites and from the Salama Valley to El Baul and Chalchuapa. Although population estimates for Kaminaljuyu cannot be made because of the destruction of the site, tens of thousands of laborers, probably drawn from all over the valley, were necessary to construct and maintain the city.

Many archaeologists believe that the centralized power required to organize such public works would have been beyond that of a mere chiefdom. And the stelae cult probably served to glorify the rulers of such an incipient state. One tomb – Bural C in Structure E-III-3 – is the richest yet discovered anywhere in the Maya realm for the Late Preclassic Period. Its more than 300 artifacts – jade, obsidian, quartz crystals, entire sheets of mica, stingray spines (known to be used by Maya royalty for autosacrifice), fish teeth, and, of course, ceramics including Usultan-ware – certainly suggest that its occupant, accompanied by four sacrificed individuals, was a Kaminaljuyu king. The burial contents also demonstrate the extensive trade and wealth of this strategically located city. (page 38)

The Book of Mormon tells us that the Nephites ruled the City of Nephi until their flight guided by King Mosiah in approximately BC 279 (Omni 13). This dating places them as leaders of Kaminaljuyu from the later portion of the Middle Preclassic period to a hundred years into the Late Preclassic period. While it appears that Kaminaljuyu likely did not reach the full extent of its power until after the dating of the Nephite exodus, it is undeniable that it was already a well organized settlement with a structured leadership by the time that Nephi and his followers would have pitched their tents and named the location the City of Nephi.

This indicates that almost immediately following Nephi’s arrival in the New World, he was able to persuade two groups of unmentioned indigenous others to not only join his company, but to actually elect him as their king.

10 And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses.

11 And the Lord was with us; and we did prosper exceedingly; for we did sow seed, and we did reap again in abundance. And we began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind.

12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or compass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land.

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cause my people to be industrious, and to labor with their hands.

18 And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power.

Although we can only speculate about how Nephi accomplished this feat, given the fact that the background of these indigenous others included the tendency to completely enmesh religion and government (see the Holy Lords section), it seems quite reasonable to conclude that this must have included a religious conversion. What a remarkable event this would have been, surely surpassing the later miraculous conversions of Lamanites. Yet, strangely, the Book of Mormon, a text that the authors tell us is written for intent of bringing souls to Christ, is completely silent on this event.

Regardless of how the indigenous others were persuaded to elect Nephi as their leader, the group went on to experience great prosperity, to the point where Jacob, Nephi’s brother, already saw fit to warn the people of the danger of pride.

15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

16 Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride.

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a bland of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to ado good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

In particular, verses 13 and 19 seem to indicate that the society is already dividing into classes. While Kaminaljuyu was already an established settlement with a some sort of structured leadership that enabled them to build public canals, it is questionable that such a clear division between classes would have arisen at such an early stage. Moreover, even when later in Mesoamerican history clear class divisions did arise, it is misleading to think of the lower class, the commoners, as struggling to meet their needs. The main division between the elite and the commoner classes was access to exotic goods and knowledge that enabled the elite to engage in important ritual events.

In their essay “Commoners in Postclassic Maya Society: Social versus Economic Class Constructs”, from the book Ancient Maya Commoners, Marilyn Masson and Carlos Peraza Lope state:

The concept of a commoner class in Postclassic Maya society is an evasive one, suggesting that social status position does not vary evenly with the conditions of economic life. As many of the contributors to this volume have demonstrated, when economic patterns of household production and local, regional, and distant exchange are compared, commoners are not always easily distinguished from elites. Elites are identified primarily from indicators of social status that are rooted in political and ritual activity. Such indicators include increased residential platform size, the monopolization of certain types of ritual events and paraphernalia, and the control of particular forms of production or exchange. These vary from site to site according to historical and geographical contexts that affected social and economic institutions at individual communities. From the perspective of material realities in the archaeological record, the continuum of social and economic indicators suggest that class structure was to some degree fluid. A single model of class relations within all Postclassic Maya communities is not reflected. (page 197)

Social mobility based on economic affluence was likely fluid. Many activities of economic production and exchange do not distinguish the households of elites and commoners. Social (rather than economic) elites maintained their distinctions much in the manner of Maya elites prior to the Postclassic period – through the control of important calendrical ceremonies celebrated at Maya communities. Most probably, they also helped maintain their polities by hosting ritual activities essential to intercommunity integration, forging alliances external to their polities, and perhaps organizing major market events. (p 199)

Arthur Demarest, in the aforementioned The Ancient Maya, makes similar statements regarding the Classic period, which was the most complex and advanced period in ancient Mesoamerican history, although social divisions became more pronounced in the Postclassic period. The last few centuries of the Late Preclassic period were almost indistinguishable from the Early Classic period, and the centuries preceding the Late Preclassic would have been less socially complex and stratified.

Some of the social patterns of Classic Maya society were “fossilized” in architecture and artifacts in the ruins of household groups. For each household group the amount of stone masonry (versus mud and thatch) often varied with the social rank of the ancient inhabitants. Height and area of household platforms, the presence or absence of monuments, distance from the nearest epicenter, the number of courtyards, presence of plastered floors, and the types of pottery and artifacts in burials are all clues to the social and political standing of a group’s ancient inhabitants. Evidence from recent settlement pattern studies shows that Classic Maya families varied almost continuously in social standing and wealth – in contrast to earlier depictions of ancient Maya society as starkly divided between elites and commoners. Instead, Classic Maya households ranged from isolated huts without even a basal platform to plaza groups of noble families with fine stone masonry, plastered floors, rich tombs, and sculpture. Most Classic Maya had a complex social structure with few sharp divisions between “levels” or classes of Maya society, despite the great contrast between the poorest huts and the richest royal palaces. (page 116)

In her essay “The Pre-Classic Maya Compound as the Focus of Social Identity”, from the book Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, Julia Hendon states:

Studies of the distribution of artifacts from Middle-Late Pre-Classic domestic contexts at Cuello and from Late Pre-Classic ones at Cerros provide additional insight into the economic role of the household. Production, whether to fulfill subsistence needs or for exchange, is firmly embedded in the household. Furthermore, little evidence exists for the differentiation of households by occupation. Evidence for subsistence or specialized production is dispersed throughout the residential area and on a relatively small scale. (page 108)

Demarest’s aforementioned text discusses at length how the ancient Maya were able to become such a thriving culture, supporting surprisingly large population numbers. He believes that the secret to their success lay in how they used a variety of agricultural approaches to achieve the highest level of productivity with their rainforest environment. Included in that was the fact that the majority of households had their own intensive garden that provided for their basic needs. He also states that:

Traditional theories of the rise of complex society and the formation of states explain the development of elites as managers of critical aspects of the economy. Functionalist thinking dictates that if institutions of inequality in wealth and centralization of power exist, they must have arisen for a “practical” reason. Thus, early chiefs and archaic states are assumed to have been involved in aspects of the economy which required centralized management, such as construction and maintenance of hydraulic systems, management of trade in subsistence goods, and corporate organization of intensive agricultural systems. Yet, as we have seen, in the Maya lowlands one of the secrets of their rain forest adaptation was that it was decentralized – allowing local adaptations to microenvironmental conditions for each patch of ground. Farming families, drawing upon generations of knowledge of their soils, gradients, and vegetation, were able to apply any of a variety of intensive or extensive gardening or field systems to suit those local conditions. (page 146)

One of the most important distinctions between the elite and commoners was based in the consumption of luxury items directly related to religious rituals. Again from Demarest:

It was observed at the time of the Spanish Conquest in central Mexico that most such luxury goods and status-reinforcing symbols were limited by custom and formal sumptuary laws to the rulers and nobles, and to those who served them well as priests, warriors, or administrators. Similarly, Maya rulers in the Classic period would have controlled the acquisition and distribution of symbols of authority such as quetzal feathers, precious stones, and jaguar pelts. These items were probably exchanged between elites both regionally and at long distances as dowry, bride-price or gifts at royal marriages, coronations, pilgrimages, funerals, and major religious rituals. Exotic goods and fine polychrome ceramics were also probably regularly given as tribute to rulers by subordinate conquered centers and vassals. (page 161)

It is difficult to reconcile Jacob’s concern with the struggling poor with Mesoamerican history, as it is difficult to understand his concern with costly apparel when the primary source of class differentiation in ancient Mesoamerica was so directly tied to religious rituals and ceremonies. Certainly, in times of drought or flood, commoners would suffer more food shortage than the elite would, but the Book of Mormon consistently links neglect of the poor to times of general prosperity.

If a Mesoamerican city, like Kaminaljuyu, had the prerequisite population level and social complexity to demonstrate the beginnings of social classes, then it would have been one of the most advanced and powerful polities in ancient Mesaomerica.

If the elite leaders of one of the most advanced and powerful polities in ancient Mesoamerica were Judeo-Christian, then they would have influenced the course of social evolution in ancient Mesoamerica.

If there really were unnamed “others”, then Nephi would have neglected to mention the miraculous conversion of two groups of indigenous “others” in his record, and would have somehow convinced people living in an already successful settlement to accept his leadership.

If Jacob actually lived in an ancient Mesoamerican setting, then his expressed concern with the struggling poor had to nothing to do with their actual subsistence, but rather had to do with their inability to access luxury items connected to the pre-existing native religion, which they would not have even been practicing.

Zarahemla

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the eland of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—

13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the bland of Zarahemla.

14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.

15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.

17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates.

19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.

In An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Dr. Sorenson offered Santa Rosa as the setting for Zarahemla. He makes this determination based on geographical requirements and the fact that Santa Rosa was the largest archaeological site on the upper Grijalva. It is not coincidental that he looked for the largest site; the polities described in the Book of Mormon, as I shall demonstrate, absolutely require the largest sites. Once again, I utilize Sorenson’s model due to the fact that it is so widely accepted among adherents to the Limited Geography Theory, as well as the fact that I know of no other actual suggested candidate. Deanne Matheny, in her essay “Does the Shoe Fit?,” from New Approaches to the Book of Mormon analyzed how well Santa Rosa fits the description of Santa Rosa. Some of the problems she noted were the lack of evidence of a wall or evidence of a wide-scale fire, reflecting its destruction at the time of the death of Jesus. In addition, the location Sorenson suggests for Sidom, Chiapa de Corzo, is actually a “richer and better-constructed ceremonial center”, which contradicts the actual content of the Book of Mormon which suggests that Zarahemla was a more significant center than Sidom. In fact, Zarahemla is depicted as one of the, if not the, most powerful Nephite city throughout the entire Book of Mormon text.

However, before addressing this particular point, there is another point of correspondence, according to Sorenson, that merits discussion. On page 156 of his book, Sorenson states:

A unique fact about the pattern of this settlement came to light in the excavations by the New World Archaeological Foundation. Archaeologist Donald Brockington, who helped excavate part of the largest pyramid mound in the center of Santa Rosa, found that in this structure, constructed in the first century BC, a layer of gravel had been laid which was then stuccoed over as a footing on which the mound was further built. The base gravel was of two completely different kinds, clearly brought there from two sources. The line separating the gravel areas was meticulously straight and was oriented approximately east and west, dividing the structure exactly in half. Furthermore, the site’s inhabitants lived in two oval-shaped zones separated from each other by a ceremonial zone oriented along the same line. Brockington concluded that the gravel had been laid down by two distinct social (perhaps linguistic) groups that occupied the site and that seem to have related to each other by formal ritual and political arrangements. Could these two groups have been the people of Zarahemla and the people of Nephi? Mosiah 25:4 supports the possibility: “And now all the people of Nephi were assembled together, and also all the people of Zarahemla, and they were gathered together in two bodies.” Also the “churches” Alma organized (Alma 25:19-21) were probably based on ethnic/residential units. If two distinct peoples did live in separate sections within the city, the arrangement would agree with later Mesoamerican practice.

At first glance, this appears to be a truly exciting “hit”. Yet, on closer inspection, there are problems that Matheny reveals:

A number of archaeological investigations have occurred at Santa Rosa in the state of Chiapas, Mexico – the site which Sorenson suggests comes closest to this profile suggested by the Book of Mormon. The first investigations there were carried out by Gareth W. Lowe in 1956. He noted that Santa Rosa appeared to be the largest Preclassic site on the Grijalva River between the site of Chiapa de Corzo and the Guatemalan frontier. More intensive fieldwork was carried out by the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1958. Located on the south side of the Grijalva River at its confluence with the Aguacate River, the site of Santa Rosa is composed of over forty earthen mounds. A cluster of twenty-eight mounds oriented along a general east-west line forms the central group. Delgado noted that there is little planning in the architectural layout other than the general east-west orientation. The central portion of the site includes an area about 500 meters north-south by about 800 meters east-west. Mound W is the tallest at the site, reaching a height of 14 meters. Mound S, a platform measuring 74 meters east-west by 80 meters north-south, is the largest.

The excavations at Santa Rosa were adequate, although by no means as extensive as those at Chiapa de Corzo and other sites in the region. These excavations consisted of seventeen trenches in mounds and twenty-nine stratigraphic tests pits. The excavations revealed six periods of prehistoric occupation at Santa Rosa and one brief period of historic occupation. Phase I is Middle Preclassic (800-600 BCE) with no known associated architecture; the ceramic distribution suggest that a zone of scattered houses existed along the Rio Aguacate. In Phase 2 (600-500 BCE), also Middle Perclassic, Brockington postulates from his study of ceramic distribution that there was a clustered village with a moiety or dual division indicated by two separate parallel areas of potsherds. The village was oriented in relation to a ceremonial structure (Mound V).

During phase 3 (500-50 BCE) there was further ceremonial construction (mounds G and W), and the two parallel areas of postherd concentrations continue although they are longer and wider, indicating that the basic Phase 2 arrangement continued but with greater population. Phase 4 (50 BCE- CE 200) was a time of cultural florescence at Santa Rosa with considerable construction in the ceremonial center. According to Brockington, the areas of potsherd concentrations seen in the previous two phases survive but have more complex patterns. He sees this as evidence that a basic moiety division continued to exist. As further evidence he mentions a layer of gravel atop Mound S at the site center. The gravel on each side of a median line was different and unmixed, suggesting that a separate group made each section.

Phase 5 begins about CE 200 and corresponds to the Early Classic period in the Maya area. Remains from this period are sparsely represented at Santa Rosa, and little construction can be assigned to this period. The population at the site seems to have declined significantly from Phase 4 times. Ceramic distribution is altered from earlier periods; a concentration now runs through the site center along a northeast-southwest line. This change probably indicates a break with earlier traditions. Brockington suggests that there may have been a hiatus of occupation between Phases 5 and 6. In Phase 6 (CE 800-1000) the settlement patter was similar to Phase 5 and the population was close to the smaller population of Phase 5. A long hiatus of occupation at the site followed Phase 6. It lasted until after the Spanish Conquest when the site was reoccupied for a short time, probably early in the nineteenth century.

This sentence in particular is problematic for this “hit”. “In Phase 2 (600-500 BCE), also Middle Perclassic, Brockington postulates from his study of ceramic distribution that there was a clustered village with a moiety or dual division indicated by two separate parallel areas of potsherds.” This crucial sentence actually reveals that the division which Dr. Sorenson points to as evidence of the two groups living in Zarahemla: the people of Nephi and the people already living in Zarahemla - actually long predated the arrival of Mosiah and his followers. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility of a THIRD group joining two already pre-existing groups at Zarahemla, but there is no evidence of a third group. It is extremely misleading to cite this as evidence supporting the Book of Mormon text when surely Dr. Sorenson had access to the actual information, which, according to Matheny, clearly states that the moiety division began in Phase 2, long before the arrival of Mosiah.

While this evidence does not lend support to the Book of Mormon, it does provide information on what kind of polity Santa Rosa actually was - a basic moiety. In her book, Maya Political Science, Prudence Rice offers information that helps clarify the issue.

During the Preclassic period, the Maya were at a chiefdom level of organization, with “political” aspects regulated by kin groups (moieties) having different responsibilities: one was “charged with internal affairs (land use, personal conflict) while the leader of the other group would handle external affairs (warfare, ritual). Through time – by the Late Classic – this was transformed by economic wealth into a more formal and less kinship-based, diarchical structure. Furthermore, “the divine origins of the dual rulers are clearly described in the Popol Vuh and other origin myths which reify the cognitive processes involved with this kind of political structure. (page 266)

Moiety organization rather than a chiefdom?

How do people manage to incorporate competing “big men” and their factions into a single, integrated society? On the Plains of western North America, the creative solutions developed to solve this problem included elaborate tribal rituals, tribal councils, rotating chiefships, medicine and war societies, and many other mechanisms of social integration. For us, the most pervasive feature of social structure of the San Jose phase of the Valley of Oaxaca is not a system of ranked descent groups but the duality of earth-and-sky symbolism. We suggest that this dual emphasis is inconsistent with social structure based on unilineal descent. Unilineal descent-group systems such as those of the Hopi, the Northwest Coast Indians, the Iroquois, and the Huron are much more fragmented, although some cases also have a dual grouping of descent groups, each with its own totemic symbolism, sacred objects, emblems, residences or clusters of houses, rituals, and even ritual structures. For example, the Hopi, with a turn-of-the-twentieth-century population of about 2,000 (the same as the Valley of Oaxaca in 1000 BC), were divided into about thirty clans. Some groupings of related clans (called phratries) occurred, but even combined in this way there were fourteen groupings rather than just two.

Social structure based on descent groups is likely to show greater diversity in symbolism than we have in the Valley of Oaxaca at 1000 BC. Given the wide distribution of earth-and-sky symbolism throughout Mesoamerica during the Early Horizon, it is difficult to see how it could have represented the same descent groups over such a large, culturally diverse area. This degree of uniformity seems unlikely since descent group systems in general tend to be variable from region to region. This discrepancy throws additional doubt on the hypothesis that the Valley of Oaxaca had a political structure based on descent reckoning. (pages 39, 40)

We lack the data that would allow us to understand the dual divisions in the Valley of Oaxaca of 1000 BC in detail, but the pervasive duality of earth-and-sky symbolism suggests that social integration was achieved through a principle of moiety opposition rather than through the centralized political offices of a chieftainship. A productive analogy for San Jose Mogote and the rest of the Valley of Oaxaca in 1000 BC might be found among ethnographically described Mesoamerican peasant communities with moiety structures. This pattern of dualistically partitioned communities (which in some cases links outlying dependent communities to partitions of a central one) is regarded by cultural anthropologists as a survival of an ancient aboriginal Mesoamerican social structure, because most of the communities still displaying it are those that were least influenced by Spanish imperial policies. In addition, there are no known Spanish ore more recent Mexican government policies that would have produced it.

These dual partitions or barrios generally are not composed of ranked unilineal descent groups such as the conical clan systems of chiefdoms. Indeed, Mesoamerica is not recognized as an area in which unilineal descent played an important role in aboriginal social structure. Furthermore, moiety structure and descent groups need not coexist; many known moiety systems (for example, the Tewa Pueblos of New Mexico) exist in the absence of descent group structure.

The dual partitions or barrios known ethnographically have primarily ceremonial and political functions. For example, among the Western Mixe speakers of the mountains just north and east of the Valley of Oaxaca, each barrio has its own saint as a key symbol and its charged with carrying out the associated saint’s-day ritual. In addition to ritual, governance of Mixe communities is structured by the dual system. An important feature of dual governance is that it prevents the concentration of power in any one group or household. At any one time the two most important Mixe officials, mayor and judge, must be of different barrios, and these offices are reversed between barrios annually. Lower officials involved in day-to-day governance rotates offices between barrios in alternate weeks. (pages 41,21)

This information demonstrates two important points: a polity organized as a moiety was likely at the chiefdom level of complexity, and that moieties were not uncommon in ancient Mesoamerica. Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World shares more information about chiefdoms:

In the Archaic Period and Early Preclassic Periods, Maya settlements on the Pacific coast appear to have become simple chiefdoms in which the shaman-ruler inherited the right to rule. Socially, these chiefdoms were stratified into elite lineages and commoners, as well as specialists, such as potters. There were no large public projects that would require the mobilization of the population. The central and northern areas, meanwhile, were more likely typified by egalitarian fishing villages, not chiefdoms.

In the Middle Preclassic Period, many of these chiefdoms on the Pacific littoral evolved into polities in which the chief ruled over numerous small villages from a capital city. But at the same time, other cities became far more complex urban centers, such as Nakbe in the Peten and Chalchuapa and La Blanca in the southern region. Based on the size of the monumental architecture at such urban centers, the elite class was increasingly wealthy and capable of organizing and directing the large workforce necessary to build masonry complexes. Some of the laborers must have been plaster specialists, stonecutters, and supervisors, suggesting increasing social specialization and political complexity. In the preindustrial world, the rise of complex states was accompanied by the building of such monumental public projects. Some of these cities may have reached the level of incipient states. (page 122)

While some polities in the Preclassic period did develop into the state level of complexity, Santa Rosa was not one of those polities. At the very most, Santa Rosa could have ruled over a few small nearby villages. In contrast, the text of the Book of Mormon presents a very different picture. In this essay, I will not address the actual population figures provided, due to the realistic possibility of authorial exaggeration. Instead, I will focus on the behaviors of the polity in question.

The first example is from Alma, chapter 8, around BC 82. Alma abdicated his position as chief judge in order to focus his full attention on spreading the church in the land of Zarahemla. One of the cities he visited was Ammonihah.

2 And thus ended the ninth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.

4 And he began to teach the people in the land of Melek according to the holy order of God, by which he had been called; and he began to teach the people throughout all the land of Melek.

5 And it came to pass that the people came to him throughout all the borders of the land which was by the wilderness side. And they were baptized throughout all the land;

6 So that when he had finished his work at Melek he departed thence, and traveled three days’ journey on the north of the land of Melek; and he came to a city which was called Ammonihah.

8 And it came to pass that when Alma had come to the city of Ammonihah he began to preach the word of God unto them.

9 Now Satan had gotten great hold upon the hearts of the people of the city of Ammonihah; therefore they would not hearken unto the words of Alma.

Verse twelve is extremely clear. The people who lived in the city of Ammonihah recognized the authority of the chief judge seated in Zarahemla. In this analysis, and those that will follow, it helps to visualize the distances involved.

Unfortunately, I do not know of any online map that shows the correlation of Book of Mormon cities to contemporary Central American cities, so to arrive at an understanding of the approximate distances involved required looking in several sources. I used Deanne Matheny’s map from her essay “Does the Shoe Fit?” and compared it to mapquest’s maps of Chiapas, Mexico. The approximate distance from Zarahemla to Ammonihah is 110 miles, as the crow flies (the distance would likely be even longer were I to factor reasonable walking paths). Therefore, Zarahemla’s chief judge was also the ruling authority figure for a city 110 miles away. In today’s modern world, that assertion does not cause concern. However, it causes a great deal of concern in regards to the history of ancient Mesoamerica.

Prudence Rice, in Maya Political Science – Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos, states:

Analysis of spatial distances between Classic centers does not qualify as creating “models” of political organization, but it can reveal hierarchies of sites. Many authors have commented on the geographic spacing between Classic centers and its implications for political organization and administration. The distances between sites in the lowlands generally range from 12 to 20 miles, roughly the distance that could be walked in a day. Similar spacing of archaeological sites has been noted in other regions of the world, such as Europe and the Near East, and may represent a common logistical factor that facilitates administration in early states lacking vehicular or animal transport systems. (page 35)

At the apex is a large primary site with scores of plazas and a population in the tens of thousands, which dominated a territory of thousands of square km. These primary cities interacted with smaller secondary sites through royal marital ties and other alliances, perhaps economic, ritual, or military. Secondary sites were, in turn, surrounded by even smaller tertiary and quaternary level sites, perhaps dower houses and tiny farming homesteads were interspersed around all of these. (page 36)

There have been many methods applied by scholars to estimate the territorial size and populations of Maya states. For many decades we have relied upon indirect measures based on archaeological data about the distance between sites, the volume of construction in sites, or the number of monuments, plazas, or structures. More recently we have been able to shift to the historical record of the stone monuments and their inscriptions identifying the ruling of dynasties of the K’uhul Ajaw and their political alliances, rituals, and wars. Critical to such interpretations are the emblem-glyphs and titles described earlier. A few texts even mention tribute payments by vassal polities. With such detailed data, it is possible to be more specific about which centers were dominant powers in particular periods and to plot their political relationships. This epigraphic record portrays a very complex inter-elite political landscape throughout the Classic period.

As a minimal building block of Maya polities, the individual small polity, defined by a dynastic “holy lord” title or emblem-glyph, has been estimated by some scholars as being one or two days’ walking distances in diameter. Probably dynastic seats or “capitals” of such minimal polities were often about ten to thirty kilometers apart. We might speculate that this size for the realm of the average holy lord befits a “theater-state” in which the K’uhul Ajaaw’s personal presence and celebration of rites were central to the maintenance of his authority. For a time, epigraphers and archaeologists believed that the lowland Maya world in the Classic period consisted of only such small city-states interacting in a “peer polity” system. Now, with more detailed information, we can study the tremendous variability in Maya polities and the historical development of structurally distinct regional states and pan-lowland, but short-lived, alliances.

In the Late Classic, polities had populations varying from several thousand at most major cities to several hundred thousand around some great regional capitals such as Calakmul, Tikal, and Caracol. All such demographic estimates for sites, polities, or regions are highly speculative calculations based on house mound counts, ceramic dating of mounds, ethnographic models for the number of persons per structure, and, usually, a calculation factor for “invisible” houses that lacked clearly visible substructure mounds or platforms. Combined with the epigraphic evidence on specific political formations, the speculative demography and settlement evidence allow broad, very tentative characterizations of Classic Maya political history. (page 214)

There does exist some disagreement among Mesoamerican scholars in regards to the sizes of a ceremonial capital’s region, in terms of secondary and tertiary sites, which would describe the relationship between Zarahemla and Ammonihah. The following information from Foster’s Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World helps to delineate the possibilities.

Site rankings and regional mappings cannot by themselves define the boundaries of the Maya states. More information is needed to create such territorial boundaries and to determine the size and number of Maya political states. With no hieroglyphic inscriptions available for most regions and most periods of Maya civilization, archaeologists have utilized various models about central places to delineate political territories. Assuming that the first-rank cities, such as Tikal, Copan, and Coba, were at the center of their domains, the boundaries were projected by formulas based on information about the maximum distance for effective communication, transportation, and control.

The world systems theory, for example, argues that a pedestrian society like that of the Maya could cover only 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) in one day and that would be the farthest distance feasible for a secondary center. Such information has recently been used to delineate the Early Postclassic states of Chichen Itza, and it has successfully explained the carefully spaced towns between that capital city and its port at Isla Cerritos. It could also be used to explain El Mirador’s central location amid the series of paved roads to other Late Preclassic Period cities; the paved roads must have expedited travel between the capital and its second-tier cities.

For the Classic Period, mathematical models have provoked far more controversy, primarily because there has been less agreement over which cities should be considered capitals. Where emblem glyph information has been available, the advocates of city-states have argued that an emblem glyph indicates an independent polity, regardless of size, unless the hieroglyphic evidence indicates otherwise. For example, the small city of Pomona, usually considered a dependency of Palenque, had an emblem glyph, and in the eighth century it was independent of Palenque. The size difference between Pomona and Palenque was no more relevant to their political status in the eighth century, it is argued, than that of Holland and the United States in the 20^th century: All are autonomous. The regional states position has tended to elevate only the physically largest of cities with emblem glyphs to the status of a capital and has relied heavily on archaeological evidence as opposed to epigraphic decipherments. (page 130)

So while it may not be possible to categorically assert the relationships between all ancient Mesoamerican polities, scholars generally accept that secondary sites must be within one day’s walking distance of the capital center, in order for the capital center to exert any form of control over that site.

But there is some dispute over how large these polities became, which again is reflected in Foster’s summary:

Mathematical models and site rankings have not resolved basic issues about the size of Maya political states, and both the regional and city-state theories require some modification to fit more closely with the known archaeological facts. In the case of Chichen Itza and perhaps even El Mirador, the regional state theory seems to be supported by archaeological evidence. But some archaeologists believe that for most periods of Maya civilization, the Maya political states was inherently unstable and incapable of forming the large unitary sates envisioned under the regional state position. Such weak states are called peer polities, or segmentary states, and many argue that the city-state model better captures the fragmentation that results from such instability.

Regardless of their size, segmentary states have the same function. Tikal provided no more benefits to its populace, under this theory, than Nakum did, once it proclaimed its independence from Tikal. If a member of a dynasty were unhappy or if a competing noble lineage became dissatisfied, a splinter state could be formed with no loss…

Under the peer polity theory, Maya states were incapable of sustaining expansive regional states because the Maya ruler inspired loyalty to local dynasties, not large regional territories. Many small, weak states resulted, and their power fluctuated according to whether they had strong, militaristic rulers. According to this view, the Maya political system could not sustain political stability, and the Maya ruler had interest only in protecting his state, not in territorial expansion.

Although there is now considerable evidence that some Maya states were interested in territorial expansion, the peer polity theory has many followers. In fact, supporters of this theory argue that the amount of warfare among the many cities that were allegedly unified into regional states proves they were, in fact, fragmented and not integrated. Tikal was repeatedly attacked and defeated by the very cities it supposedly ruled as a regional state, Caracol being its most notable enemy. During the Late Classic Period, at least, such political shifts within states, whether city-states or regional states, were not unusual. (page 132)

By the 1990s, the increasingly refined readings of the hieroglyphic texts enabled Mayanists to understand far more about political relationships than permitted by the emblem glyphs alone. The new information suggests that there may have been immense political territories, as envisioned by proponents of the regional state theory. On the other hand, the texts suggest that such political territories, far from being integrated states, constituted only a confederacy of autonomous city-states. Any city-state’s autonomy, however, lasted only as long as the city-state cooperated with the confederacy; autonomy came with a price tag: tribute payments.

The decipherments demonstrate that dynastic rulers of cities with emblem glyphs were sometimes subservient to another. Some were members of the dynastic nobility that had been appointed to govern dependencies. Some rulers were installed under the auspices of a ruler not through dynastic ties but through conquest or marriage alliances. Yet these rulers, apparently subservient to a greater state, continued to fight wars, receive their own tribute to build immense palatial complexes, and take on all the appearances of autonomous city-states. These texts suggest that city-states combined into regional confederations, but the local rulers were permitted to act as if their authority had not been compromised.

The superstate theory is still being refined, but it suggests that the Maya city-states sometimes participated in large territorial confederacies controlled by one of the great military powers Tikal or Calakmul. Tikal and Calakmul were surrounded by extensive territories – at least 120 square kilometers (27 square miles) for Calakmul – in which no other city employed an emblem glyph. Their power may have originated from the vast territorial resources under their direct control, which included many bureaucratic tiers of other cities and towns. As such, they were powerful, independent city-states. The dynasties of these two great military states intermarried with dynasties at other states, conquered yet others and controlled the installation of their rulers, and forged a network of trade and tribute. In the process, these two states created large confederacies, or superstates.

The power of these states was such that smaller ones gained considerable prestige through the association. Also, the inscriptions suggest that the states participating in these confederations did not war with one another. Under this view, there were two different kinds of states in the Late Classic Period: somewhat autonomous city-states and larger superstates that included these semi-independent city-states. This might be roughly comparable to the current situation in Europe where many independent nations have joined the European Union, mostly for economic reasons, but also for the peace that it insures. In the case of the European Union, however, membership in the confederacy is completely voluntary. For the Maya superstates, military coercion was probably used as often as political persuasion. (page 133)

While the issue is far from settled among Mesoamerican scholars, for the sake of argument I shall assume the most generous territorial plan, that of the super-state, to evaluate the polities described in the Book of Mormon. The association described between Zarahemla and Ammonihah still falls far outside the most generous vision of Mesoamerican political power. Note, for example, the distances given for one of the most powerful and expansive Classic period polities, Calakmul – 27 square miles. Yet, as I stated earlier, as the crow flies, the simple distance from Zarahemla and Ammonihah is over 100 miles. The second fatal flaw is in regards to the fact that Ammonihah recognized the legal authority of the chief judge of Zarahemla. Even under the super-states theory, each city-state retained its own jurisdictional authority. There is simply no political system coherent with ancient Mesoamerica that could satisfactorily include the relationship between Zarahemla and Ammonihah, particularly when they were so far apart.

Of course, the relationship between these two cities is only one example of a larger problem encompassing almost the entire Book of Mormon story. Ammonihah is just one of many cities listed as being under some form of control of Zarahemla. Another example comes from the book of Alma, after the miraculous conversion of so many Lamanites:

1 Now it came to pass that when those Lamanites who had gone to war against the Nephites had found, after their many struggles to destroy them, that it was in vain to seek their destruction, they returned again to the land of Nephi.

2 And it came to pass that the Amalekites, because of their loss, were exceedingly angry. And when they saw that they could not seek revenge from the Nephites, they began to stir up the people in anger against their brethren, the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi; therefore they began again to destroy them.

3 Now this people again refused to take their arms, and they suffered themselves to be slain according to the desires of their enemies.

4 Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction among those whom they so dearly beloved, and among those who had so dearly beloved them—for they were treated as though they were angels sent from God to save them from everlasting destruction—therefore, when Ammon and his brethren saw this great work of destruction, they were moved with compassion, and they said unto the king:

5 Let us gather together this people of the Lord, and let us go down to the land of Zarahemla to our brethren the Nephites, and flee out of the hands of our enemies, that we be not destroyed.

21 And it came to pass that the chief judge sent a proclamation throughout all the land, desiring the voice of the people concerning the admitting their brethren, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

22 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful; and this land Jershon is the land which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance.

23 And behold, we will set our armies between the land Jershon and the land Nephi, that we may protect our brethren in the land Jershon; and this we do for our brethren, on account of their fear to take up arms against their brethren lest they should commit sin; and this their great fear came because of their sore repentance which they had, on account of their many murders and their awful wickedness.

The significance of this section is that the city of Zarahemla apparently had enough control over the land of Jershon that they could “give” the converted Lamanites this land. Again, referring to Matheny’s map and the map of modern Chiapas, Jershon would have been approximately 160 miles away from Zarahemla. Once again, while Mesoamerican scholars may disagree on some points regarding the type of polities that existed in ancient Mesoamerica, it is not even within the realm of discussion to imagine one city having that type of control over another area 160 miles away. No Mesoamerican polity, during that time period, could have extended such control over such a large region, much less the moiety of Santa Rosa. The only feasible imperial candidate for such a feat would be the Aztecs, and, of course, they came on the scene a thousand years too late.

Additional verses provide more information about the power Zarahemla exerted. Later in the book of Alma, the Lamanites wage war against the Nephites, and Moroni is at the head of the Nephite army, around BC 67. Note the various Nephite cities mentioned in this campaign, in addition to the aforementioned Jershon, on the coast:

22 Behold, now it came to pass that they durst not come against the Nephites in the borders of Jershon; therefore they departed out of the land of Antionum into the wilderness, and took their journey round about in the wilderness, away by the head of the river Sidon, that they might come into the land of Manti and take possession of the land; for they did not suppose that the armies of Moroni would know whither they had gone.

1 And now it came to pass in the eleventh month of the nineteenth year, on the tenth day of the month, the armies of the Lamanites were seen approaching towards the land of Ammonihah.

2 And behold, the city had been rebuilt, and Moroni had stationed an army by the borders of the city, and they had cast up dirt round about to shield them from the arrows and the stones of the Lamanites; for behold, they fought with stones and with arrows.

12 Therefore they retreated into the wilderness, and took their camp and marched towards the land of Noah, supposing that to be the next best place for them to come a

Polities and Power

Introduction

Box 2 Traditional typologies of “level” of political complexity in human societies

Fried: stratification typology

In the Beginning…

Zarahemla

Moiety organization rather than a chiefdom?