Culture: Amaleki’s bald narrative conceals a fascinating conundrum. How is it possible for Mosiah1, the leader of a smaller group of refugees who have been wandering in the wilderness, to become the king over a larger population in an established, and presumably more prosperous, city?
Although my reconstruction is in the realm of speculation, the combination of factors that place Zarahemla in a Mesoamerican milieu at this particular time and place provide some interesting clues. As background, we must return to Sorenson’s location of Zarahemla at the archaeological site of Santa Rosa. Its history of occupation in one form or another dates back to 1000 B.C.E. Thus, the Mulekites had earlier moved into an area that already had some organization and structure.
Santa Rosa’s marked development during the late Preclassic (500 B.C.–A.D. 250) covers both the Zarahemlaites and the Nephites. During this period, the site is characterized by advanced architecture, known to be of imposing dimensions in at least a few instances. Typical are “stone walls and sloping batters (talud) covering earthen fills, and floors of tamped, sometimes burned, clay.” The florescence of the site occurs during the Protoclassic (A.D. 250–600), which was during the time it was under Lamanite control after the Nephite center had moved northward to Bountiful. This is consonant with my hypothesis that the Nephite holdings were typically less imposing and archaeologically important than those of their enemies, called Lamanites in the Book of Mormon but likely including multiple cities and cultural groups in modern terms.
Santa Rosa has distinctive ceramic styles that change over time, producing a rough dating system that corresponds to the pottery types that were popular during certain times. In addition, the ceramics show some correlations to styles from other sites. In the time period which would have included the Nephite arrival, certain pieces of pottery show a relationship to ceramics of Kaminaljuyú (Sorenson’s candidate for the city of Nephi), a relationship strong enough that archaeologist William T. Sanders termed it “perhaps the closest linkage of our material to other regions.”
While the Book of Mormon story that residents of Nephi (Kaminaljuyú) moved to Zarahemla (Santa Rosa) is not the only possible explanation for the presence of Kaminaljuyú-style pottery in Zarahemla, it is a plausible one. The Book of Mormon description finds potential confirmation, and, significantly, no contradiction, in the archaeology of the proposed site of Zarahemla. (From this point, for the sake of simplicity, I will no longer add qualifiers like “proposed site” or “hypothesized scenario,” although the reader should certainly be aware that this reconstruction remains speculative.)
At this period, Kaminaljuyú (Nephi) was both larger and wealthier than Santa Rosa (Zarahemla). Santa Rosa’s dramatically more ambitious architecture corresponds in time to the arrival of the Nephites, strongly suggests that Mosiah1’s people would have arrived at a town that, while populous, was not nearly as well built nor elegant as Kaminaljuyú. Delgado notes that while Santa Rosa might have been grander than its nearer competitors, it was “rather poor when compared with Chiapa de Corzo,” a contemporary site downriver on the Grijalva/Sidon. (Sorenson hypothesizes that Chiapa de Corzo may have been the site of Sidom.)
To summarize, the city of Nephi became increasingly wealthy and prosperous in ancient Mesoamerica. That wealth caused Jacob great distress because of its social consequences and its fostering of unrighteous principles. Probably the righteous in Nephi continued to feel antipathy toward the accumulation of worldly wealth, and they, presumably, were those who willingly followed the Lord’s commandment to Mosiah1 to leave the city. Certainly Mosiah1 and other leaders would have been among the well-educated social elite of Nephi, even if their followers were not. After wandering, but simultaneously being “led,” in the wilderness, the Nephites reach Zarahemla/Santa Rosa, an established city but one of less wealth and fewer fine buildings. Socially, they moved from an opulent city to one of relative poverty (though it is doubtful that many of the Nephites who went with Mosiah1 were part of the elite in Nephi).
Another indication is that Zarahemla is not called a king, even though he is clearly the town’s leader. This distinction in rulership may indicate that Zarahemla was not yet sufficiently independent and powerful to adopt hereditary kingship as a mode of government. Mosiah1, however, came from a tradition of kingship and was related to Nephi’s kings (or he could not have taken possession of the plates and other symbols). Mosiah1’s arrival from a more powerful location, his close connection to a regnal line, and his demonstrable ties to ancestral right of rulership as evidenced by the plates are all factors that would make his selection as king logical, even in the face of a larger population of people with a foreign language and customs.