Culture: This brief description of the Lamanites and the Nephites describes the Nephites as “scattered upon much of the face of the land.” It is the description of a large population inhabiting a sizeable geographical region. Since the Nephites are city dwellers, with dependent agricultural sites, the description suggests numerous towns and villages that are allied with the Nephites and who therefore fit Jacob’s definition of “Nephite.” In other words, Nephite economic and political power has been sufficiently strong to motivate other towns in the general geographic area to consider themselves Nephites.
The Lamanites are likewise “scattered” but, interestingly, have become more numerous than the Nephites. Jarom’s father, Enos, had caricaturized the Lamanites as nomadic hunter-gatherers (see commentary accompanying Enos 1:20). Hunter-gatherer societies cannot grow very large because large groups would soon outstrip the carrying capacity of their territory. While population growth might explain why the Lamanites were “scattered” over a large region, it does not explain their numerical superiority to the Nephites. Such an imbalance, historically, predicts the adoption of agriculture and husbandry. Thus, whatever the Nephite clichés in describing them, the Lamanites have, in reality, become just as urbanized as the Nephites.
In the Mesoamerican context, the definition of “Lamanite” would include anyone not “friendly” to the Nephites. Archaeological evidence from this period supports a picture of many towns and villages in Mesoamerica. From the Nephite perspective, any community who was not “friendly” to the Nephites would qualify as “Lamanite,” even if it did not contain a single lineal Lamanite. (See “Excursus: Anthropology and the Book of Mormon,” following 1 Nephi 18.) As Armand L. Mauss, professor emeritus of sociology at Washington State University notes: “The Lamanites are often described in the Book of Mormon as a fallen and degenerate people, especially in comparisons with the righteous Nephites. Of course, as the putative authors of the record in question, the Nephites were free to characterize their antagonists as they wished, and demonizing of the “other” has been a recurrent process in all of human history.”
Jarom also says the Lamanites “loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts.” On the basis of the frequent wars alone, it is possible to see why he would describe them as loving murder. However, it is also possible to read it as a description of Lamanite religious practices. Murder is conceptually different from deaths that occur in battle, so it may be a reference to the Mesoamerican practice of killing (or sacrificing) captives. Jacob 2:19 suggested that a legitimate use of wealth was to ransom captives; thus, the “love of murder” could be read as the traditional Mesoamerican fate of unredeemed captives. The connection between human sacrifice as an aspect of the Lamanite religion and the various events in the Book of Mormon will recur. (See, for example, commentary accompanying Alma 24:9–11.)
Jarom’s specific denunciation about drinking animal blood may have been to point out that the Lamanites were violating the Mosaic law, which prohibited the eating of the blood of meat animals: “Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart. Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water” (Deut. 12:15–16). This impious behavior would have been seen as a further indication of Lamanite baseness, a continuation of the cultural clichés Jacob and Enos had employed earlier. It was “accurate” in contrast to the “civilized” Nephites but may not have been historically correct. It is best seen as a stereotype.
Geography: The emerging Nephite/Lamanite conflicts should be seen in the context of Mesoamerican culture in general. While Schele and Freidel are describing specifics of the much later institution of Maya kingship, it seems reasonable that the general relationship of ruler/subject would be present in Book of Mormon times, establishing the trends that would result in the Maya kings of the Classic period (A.D. 250–800). They note:
The political geography of the Maya consisted of island cities of royal power in a sea of townspeople and village folk. Kings worked hard to establish firm control over the countryside and to expand their authority as far as possible in the direction of other polities. From the beginning of the institution of kingship, military confrontation was not only a fact of life but a necessary and inevitable royal responsibility. With the proliferation of polities, the civilized territories expanded at the expense of the freeholders.
This general description also fits the ongoing tensions between Nephite and Lamanite, punctuated by frequent wars waged to consolidate their respective territories. We may picture the Nephites as towns surrounding and beholden to the village/city of Nephi, with similar towns and villages beholden to similar Lamanite power centers. The wealth and technological prowess of the Nephites would make them prime targets of rivalry and objects of conquest by war.