History: When Mormon says that “the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites,” he seems to describe a universal conversion. However, “the land” is really the region immediately around Bountiful. From the small base of those who personally experienced the Atoning Messiah’s preaching, “the people were all converted” within only two years.
Certainly, an entire hemisphere could not be converted in only two years. It could take longer than that to walk from Mesoamerica to northeast North America. What, then, does Mormon mean by “all the face of the land”? He used the same language earlier in the account of Nephi and Lehi, the sons of Helaman:
And behold, the people did rejoice and glorify God, and the whole face of the land was filled with rejoicing.…
And thus it did come to pass that the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to build up their waste places, and began to multiply and spread, even until they did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east. (Hel. 11:17, 20; see accompanying commentary)
Mormon may have used the same language because both accounts describe the people’s righteous response to a miraculous occurrence. (Obviously the Savior’s appearance was a greater miracle than a drought’s end.) Both situations result in a seemingly universal conversion and the people’s subsequent spread over “all the face of the land” and “the whole face of the land.”
Both “spreads” are limited in space and time. “All the people” simply means all those in the land—Zarahemla’s relatively small area of political influence.
Further evidence that the geographical area of Christian influence was limited is archaeological. There is no indication of a widespread alteration in Mesoamerican religion until ca. 200–300 A.D. when the Teotihuacano religion begins to appear in the Maya region. Archaeological evidence of religious change manifests itself most convincingly as changes in artistic iconography. There would be no reason for the Nephites, who were already Christian, to develop a new iconography.
A larger problem, however, is that there is no recognizable evidence of Christian (or Jewish) iconography at all in Mesoamerican art. How could the Book of Mormon people live in these areas without establishing a new artistic tradition? I offer two related explanations.
Typically, when a new religion enters a culture with already-established art, the new religion typically adopts or adapts those existing forms for its own needs. This was certainly the case as Christianity developed among Old World pagan cities. Historian Ramsey MacMullen notes:
The tangible record gives the same impression of shared territory. For example, among the grave-goods of large Roman Egypt, very much the same things are found whether the burial be Christian or not. In a Pannonian grave was placed a box ornamented with a relief of the gods, Orpheus in the center, Sol and Luna in the corners, but the Chi-Rho as well; elsewhere, in Danube burials, similar random mixtures of symbolism appear, with gods and busts of Saint Peter and Saint Paul all in the same bas-relief. The Romans who bought cheap little baked clay oil-lamps from the shop of Annius Serapiodorus in the capital apparently didn’t care whether he put the Good Shepherd or Bacchus or both together on his products; and the rich patrons of mosaicists in Gaul, North Africa, and Syria were similarly casual about the very confused symbolism they commissioned for their floors.
I hypothesize that the Nephites similarly adopted or borrowed many artistic conventions from the surrounding cultures.
Second, many “Christian” symbols are Christian only because of long tradition or written documents. Without such references, we might not recognize a symbol as Christian at all. For instance, Peter is typically depicted with an iron key, a common object. Our understanding of Christian history tells us that the image symbolizes the priesthood keys bestowed on Peter.
Graydon F. Snyder, professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary, describes the catalogue of symbols used in Hellenistic Judaism: “A nearly complete list of symbols used by Jews through the sixth century shows ninety-seven decorations and symbols of which only the etrog [evergreen branch], lulab [palm branch], menorah, and shofar became consistent signs of Jewish identity. For the most part, the remaining ninety-three symbols come from either the general Hellenistic culture (zodiac signs, garlands) or, occasionally, come from Jewish life (the Torah shrine).”
He further notes:
In their synagogues Jews of the first centuries in the Christian era were quite willing to use a large number of Greco-Roman decorations and symbols. Some scholars, like Goodenough, see in such symbols signals of a more mystical Judaism. Others assume that Jewish leaders had no choice but to use ateliers who offered, as a matter of course, pagan decorations and symbols. Or in terms of interaction, Jews were willing to utilize the decorations and symbols of their non-Jewish neighbors. By so doing they indicated their active participation in the Greco-Roman culture. But none of these symbols became a part of the Jewish iconic conversation. In that sense, by the first two centuries of the Christian era Judaism had developed a firm symbolic identity. It could accept and utilize pagan symbolic material, but did not incorporate it.
As I read the evidence, the Nephite world adopted the symbols of its larger cultural environment, doubtless attaching new meanings to some. These symbols existed both before and after the Savior’s visit.
It is difficult to assess the iconographic content of Nephite culture. If a reader is able to visualize any Maya art, it will be the art associated with the more important cultures of the lowlands. The real question to ask is what iconography is found in the Grijalva River Basin. The answer to that question may be limited by the state of the ruins that have been excavated. However, the New World Archaeological Foundation has spent time on the Chiapas highlands, including sites along the Grijalva. The reports of those excavations can tell us a little of the iconographic picture.
There are two types of images that are important in discovering the symbols that a Mesoamerican culture uses. The first is the set of large, public displays. In other cities, this can include masks of gods on the temples themselves and images of deities on carved stelae. My survey of the highland Chiapas region, which corresponds to the area proposed as Nephite lands between at least 200 B.C. to A.D. 400, indicates that there were no reported deity masks on the temples, and that the only stelae that are reported come from the Late Classic.
The ceramic legacy of the cultures of highland Chiapas is much richer, but still yields little that demonstrates a clear representation of the typical pantheon of the gods. Santa Rosa produces a number of ceramic figurine heads and animal representations. A possible retention of an Olmec (1500–600 B.C.) religious motif is found in some “baby-face” figurines: “This class of figurine is found frequently in those sites that have an Olmec component, apparently as a relatively late trait of this influence toward the end of the Middle Preclassic and beginning of the Late Preclassic.” There is also a vessel that is shaped as a woman with the spout protruding from the shoulders. Archaeologist Donald Brockington says of this vessel: “As Delgado notes, the figure has ‘… general aspect of Teotihuacán III.… ’ It also bears considerable resemblance to Early Classic Monte Albán pieces, specifically Boos’ ‘Deity with the Headdress Composed of a Horizontal Band.’” A carved shell pendant from Chiapa de Corzo has a representation of a zoomorph with an upturned nose that is visually related to some deity representations among the Olmec and Maya. This appears to be the extent of the currently discovered artifacts that represent a possible iconographic meaning. The region was not aniconic, but perhaps icon-poor.
The architectural and general ceramic styles indicate that the cultures of highland Chiapas followed basic Mesoamerican trends. There is no clear evidence that any of the sites represent very much of the iconography of the surrounding religions. However, there are some indications that perhaps foreign pieces were brought in, such as the possible Teotihuacano or Monte Albán figurine vase. The archaeology of the region does not provide much information about the occupants’ religious beliefs.