Sociological: It is significant that Jarom moves from a description of Nephites and Lamanites “scattered over the face of the land” directly into military conflict. As noted above, that is precisely the response of such expansion of population, given the types of political alliances traditional in the Maya region of Mesoamerica. Additionally, it is significant that Jarom refers not to the armies of the Nephites defeating the Lamanites, but directly to “our kings and our leaders.” Mesoamerican warfare directly involved kings and mighty leaders, not just armies: “Kings did not take their captives easily, but in aggressive hand-to-hand combat.” (Schele and Freidel. A Forest of Kings, p. 143). Once again, Jarom is accurately portraying both the social conditions and the precise military actions that are known to have prevailed among the Maya, the precise area where the Nephites would have been under the Sorenson geographical hypothesis (see An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon), even though our Nephites are much earlier than the societies for which Schele and Freidel give their descriptions. Nevertheless, the nature of these social and cultural practices are such that they should have change dramatically, even in the hundreds of years separating our Book of Mormon at this time, and the later Maya. In the preindustrial ancient society, change did not run at nearly the pace it does for modern man, and social institutions lasting centuries were much more common anciently.
Archaeological: For many years the prevailing scholarly opinion of the Mesoamericans was one of peaceful star-gazers, in no need of fortifications. Therefore the notion that the Book of Mormon should describe fortifications of cities was taken as a proof against the text. However, more recent work has shown that this is no anachronism, and that fortifications fit into the Mesoamerican political framework.
In a study of the extant archaeological literature on the subject, it is noted:
"Table 2 gives the site counts according to ten chronological periods. Keep in mind again that the numbers are not comprehensive or inflexible since they depend on the accidents of discovery. Because the periods I am using here are purely chronological, they may differ slightly from phase or period attributions in the original sources, for the authors of those use divergent systems of terminology. The numbers reflect the fact that a single site was often used through more than one period.
Table 2. Fortified and Defensive Sites by Period
Period Definite Possible
(“Fortifications in the Book of Mormon Account Compared with Mesoamerican Fortifications.” In Warfare in the Book of Mormon. FARMS. P. 429).
The chart gives fortifications for much later periods than the one in which we are currently interested, but it does indicate that fortifications are found for the particular time period Jarom mentions, 386 BC, which falls into the general end of the Late Middle Pre-Classic and the Late Pre-Classic on the above chart. The next interesting point is the increasing frequency of fortification as time goes on, and particular between the earlier time periods and the approximate 400 BC time period where Jarom specifically mentions that they begin to fortify their locations.
It is highly probably that these numbers are understating the archaeological case. As was also noted:
“After all, it is not easy to identify some sites as fortified. In some cases, archaeologists doing field reconnaissance have reported only hillside ”terraces,“ although further examination has convinced others that these had defensive intent. Nor is it easy to spot moats or ditches that subsequent natural or human actions have obscured, particularly when the features may lie at a considerable distance—even miles—from built-up sites. Walls can be especially hard to detect where the materials from which they were constructed have been carried off for various nonmilitary purposes by ancient or modern peoples. (The potentially ephemeral nature of walls is demonstrated by one built at a comparatively recent date: the Spanish in colonial days forced the Indians to erect a great stone wall enclosing a huge area of the Valley of Mexico to contain the Europeans’ cattle. Over two million people worked for four months on the vast project, yet today no traces of it seem to have been identified.)” (“Fortifications in the Book of Mormon Account Compared with Mesoamerican Fortifications.” In: Warfare in the Book of Mormon. FARMS, p. 428)
Thus Jarom continues to give us, albeit in very few words, a completely believable picture of society in Southern Mesoamerica at this time period.
John Sorenson has suggested the Guatemalan site of Kaminaljuyu as a candidate for the city of Nephi (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1985. P. 47). At the time period discussed by Jarom, we find some interesting correspondences to the Book of Mormon account in the archaeology of Kaminaljuyu.
“During the Middle and Late Preclassic years (600 BC to 300 AD) religious architecture got of to a good start. Temple-pyramids, which in some cases served also as burial mounds were arranged along both sides of a long rectangular plaza or avenue. Religion was the driving motivation, and all nearby peoples must have contributed heavily, in time and muscle, to the necessary labor force.” (Weaver, Muriel Porter. The Aztecs, Maya, and the Predecessors. New York, Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. 1972. p. 81)
So far the picture fits with the development of the City of Nephi, with a florescence in the early time period that yet required outside help. As the city grew and prospered, it would be able to command the labor of surrounding areas, and the architectural development would witness that growth.
Weaver continues: “The glory and luxury evident at Kaminaljuyu can only signify a high degree of social stratification with wealth, power, and prestige in the hands of an elite few. The trend toward standardization of ritual material and the exclusion of certain artifacts such as figurines from the rich tombs suggests that religion was becoming formalized and rigidly patterned.” (Weaver, 1972, p. 83).
This also agrees with the analysis presented of the types of social evolution Jacob was dealing with. In the codification of religion Weaver suggests for Kaminaljuyu, I would suggest that it postdates the Nephite presence there, and is rather an outgrowth of the later Lamanite possession of the site.
In spite of the general agreement, there is one point on which there may be some difference between the archaeology and the Book of Mormon account:
“Apparently there was no fear of outsiders since the sacred or civic centers were located on open valley floors without visible means of protection.” (Weaver, 1972, p. 81).
While this does contradict Jarom’s statements about the fortifications, we need to remember that he mentions them only after the city has been in existence for at least 150-170 years. With subsequent occupations, such fortifications may have been removed when the strong Lamanite presence enters 120 years later. We may also remember that the evidences of such fortifications may be hard to find, and finally, that up to this point, the city has relied upon the strength of its leaders at arms rather than its fortifications. While certainly a caution, it is not a contraindicator for Kaminaljuyu as the plausible site of the City of Nephi.
Sorenson summarizes the archaeological evidence for the particular period in which we are currently interested:
“The centuries after Nephi and his brother Jacob died are barely described in the Book of Mormon. Neither the scriptural record nor archaeology tells us much about how life went on at that time, but Pennsylvania State University in the late 1960s investigated some remains of the occupation of Kaminaljuyu dating from the third to sixth centuries B.C., the period the books of Enos and Omni represent so briefly. The settlement then was already good sized. The excavators interpret it as having been occupied by several kin groups or lineages (notice Jacob 1:13), each living in a certain sector of the site. The central sacred area at that time seems to have consisted of rows of large burial mounds. These were probably where the elders of the kin groups were buried and honored. This custom basically agrees with the treatment of honored leaders of Israelite kin groups in Palestine when they died. Perhaps during the centuries of warfare and ”stiff-neckedness" after Nephi and Jacob died (Enos 1:22-24), the original temple fell into disuse as a center for religious practices, while burial rites for the group’s patriarchs were emphasized. At least we hear nothing about the temple between Jacob’s day and the time when the Zeniffites reoccupied the land, over 400 years later (Jacob 1:17; Mosiah 11:10, 12; compare Alma 10:2). (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1985. Page 145).