   |
|
|
At this early beginning point, how many people might be considered to be Nephites? The group departing into the wilderness is given as Nephi, Zoram, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, Nephi’s sisters, and "all others" (2 Nephi 5:6). We may presume that the mention of the men includes their families. If we use Sorenson’s assumption, each family could have had two children in the wilderness (Sorenson, John L. "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did they Find Others There?" In: Nephite Culture and Society. New Sage Books, 1997, p. 19). We might add another child per family, assuming there are around two years in the New World before Lehi’s death occasions the separation of the clan. Because Nephi has "sisters" in the plural, we must assume at least two, and two has been the usual assumption, also made in Sorenson’s analysis. This would allow us to account for approximately 27 people if the sisters were not married. If they were married, the maximum would be 35. Our range would then be 27-35 people before counting the "others." Of that group, 12-14 would be adults, and the rest children. One of the biggest problems in establishing the bounds of the division of the clan is the status of Nephi’s sisters and the identity of the "others." Erastus Snow suggested that Nephi’s sisters married Isrmael’s sons (treated in Sorenson 1997, p. 17-18). If they were married to Ishmael’s sons, then those sons would be part of the departing Nephites. If they were not, then the sons of Ishmael and their families remained with Laman and Lemuel and their families. Were this the case, we would have no indication of the marriage status of the sisters. We may presume it, but we have no named candidates in the band that left Jerusalem. The definition of the "others" rests on the nature of the division of Lehi’s clan. With 27-35 original "Nephites", how many original "Lamanites" were there? The answer would depend on the location of Ishmael’s sons, who are not specifically mentioned. Certainly there are Laman and Lemuel and their families (presumed to be 4 adults and perhaps 6 children). If we add Ishmael’s families (assuming that they were not married to Nephi’s sisters) then we would have perhaps another 4 adults (including the unmentioned wives this would require) and 6 more children. When we account for the named or mentioned individuals, there is very little room for "others." In fact, using mentioned people and their logical progeny, the only ones unaccounted for in the division are the sons of Ishmael. Regardless of where they are placed, however, it would certainly seem that if "all those who would go" were only one or two people, we would expect that Nephi might make mention of them, at least by their head of household, as he does for the families of Zoram, Sam, Jacob, and Joseph. It is rather unlikely that any of the spouses chose to split into a clan separate from their spouses (and indeed the Book of Mormon has the wives of Laman and Lemuel following their lead - while the other wives are not specifically mentioned in alliance.) There are three possibilities for the "all those who would go":
Using this last hypothesis as an explanation for "all those who would go" allows us to see that group as larger than just a few people, and probably not all of those who had originally joined with the Lehites, leaving many of this group to remain with the Lamanites (who otherwise would have an extremely small population base - much smaller than the Nephites). Archaeological information tells us that the probable land of the Lehites was already inhabited with the Lehites arrived, and these "others" would then have been integrated into Lehite culture. This answer, while adequate, is probably too simplistic, because it leaves us without answering the very important question of why those people would have joined with the Lehites rather than assimilating the Lehites into their population. This question can only be answered by understanding the prevailing populations sizes at the time Lehi and his band arrive in the New World. In Mesoamerican chronologies, the timeframe for the entry of the Lehites is the Middle PreClassic, or the Middle Formative. Particularly important for our view of the social environment of the early Lehites are the coastal areas, as that is certainly where the party would have landed. In this context, it should be noted that the Middle Formative time period is when there is a fluorescence of populations centers on the coastal regions of Mesoamerica. Most important, however, is the size of those units: "Villages were not necessarily larger, but simply more numerous." (Weaver, Muriel Porter. The Aztecs, Maya, and their Predecessors. Seminar Press, 1972. P. 44). The fact that the villages were more numerous suggests a greater difficulty of the Lehites landing and finding an area in which they were completely alone. The probabilities that they encountered other people soon after their landing are very close 100% based on the archaeological evidence alone. Finding such people would answer the question of where the "others" came from - they were already there. Now the question is the direction of assimilation. This requires an examination of the size of the villages. Joyce Marcus examined the population sizes of several Mesoamerican regions and classified them as to size. Her only data for the Guatemalan coast comes from the time period of 1350-850 BC, which is sufficiently earlier than Book of Mormon times to expect that populations would have been higher when the Lehites arrived. At that early point, she surveys 7 sites and finds them ranging from a single household (which may have multiple family members) to perhaps 12 households (Marcus, Joyce. "The Size of the Early Mesoamerican Village." In: The Early Mesoamerican Village. ed. Kent V. Flannery. Academic Press, 1976, p. 85). Data for a different region, but closer to the appropriate time range (850-550 BC) provided a sampling of 26 sites in the Valley of Mexico (the extreme northern end of the Book of Mormon geographic model - but likely a reasonable comparison for sizes of population to the Book of Mormon area). These sites range from hamlet (10-75 households) to village (90-300 households) with a single site with 600-1200 households. Of all of the sites, 22 were in the "hamlet" range of population or 10-75 households. (Marcus 1976, p. 80-81) Depending upon the accuracy of the use of "village" for the description of the coastal areas as indicated above, these data suggest that when the Lehites arrived in the New World, they would have found multiple population sites ranging from 10 households on the small level to perhaps 300 on the larger size, with the smaller populations predominating. This population density is important because it can tell us something of the probable type of "others" who would have joined with the Lehites, and their reasons. We can probably discard the assimilation by the Lehites of the larger communities of up to 300 households. Remembering that each household might hold more than one nuclear family, the populations of these locations could easily between two to four times greater than the household numbers. For instance, the Lehites enter with perhaps 8 or nine households at the maximum - and that assuming a single family per household site. With the great disparity of numbers, one would expect that not only would the weight of numbers encourage integration into the exiting village, but the existing political and social structures would be much more difficult to abandon in a larger village. This means that the probable unit that the Lehites encountered and assimilated would have been one or two of the smaller hamlets, say with no more than 20 households each as a ballpark outside number. Smaller hamlets would have fewer people, and that corresponds to less social and political stratification, and therefore fewer factors inhibiting their joining with the Lehites. The question now, of course, is of what advantage it would be to the small hamlet to join with the Lehites. It is probable that the first contact would have been on a level where there was no permanent joining, but perhaps a friendly hamlet extended hospitality to the newly arrived people with strange customs. After some time together, the hamlet would have time to find that there were skills among the newcomers that might be envied. The newcomers had come from a much more complex society than the hamlet (for all that the hamlet might have been tangentially attached to a larger center, they would not have the benefits of that center localized in the hamlet). The newcomers also had metal-working skills that would be desireable. On the other hand, the Lehites would have welcomed a friendly hamlet, and found tremendous benefit in associating themselves with natives of the land. The new land offered new challenges, and for a people who were required to make much of their own personal goods, knowing where to find game, where one might cultivate, and where to find appropriate raw materials would be invaluable information that would save the Lehites a tremendous amount of time, and probably save a few lives that might be lost in a prolonged experimentation with the new land (and the potentially poisonous foods, not to mention serpents). The best hypothesis, then to explain Nephi’s inclusion of "all those who would go" is that it referred to those of the hamlet (or perhaps hamlets?) that had joined with the Lehites, and in recognition of the greater social and technological sophistication of the newcomers, would have permitted them to occupy roles of leadership over their hamlet as exchange for the new knowledge they brought with them (if not, in fact, some of the goods themselves). The flight of the Nephites was likely one from the hot and humid lowlands into a higher elevation that was cooler (Sorenson 1985, p. 140). This alteration of location may have also created a climate more conduce to agriculture, a form of sustenance that not only was familiar to the Old World Nephites, but one capable of sustaining a larger, more stable population. We know from 1 Nephi 18:24 that the Lehites planted upon arriving, and we may assume that Nephi would have done the same in his new location. In fact, the expansion of his people would have depended upon this kind of consistent, localized source of food. When the new Nephites arrive in what will be their home, they would have established a community order rather similar to the one that they had left. They would still be, in population, a hamlet, so their first organization would be to build the centralized household units or personal shelter, and arrange the fields for production. In a community of this small size, Nephi would certainly have been one of those laboring with his hands to build up his location. The exchange of information from Old World Nephite to New World "other" continued during the building of the land of Nephi, and occurs directly through Nephi’s instruction. He notes "2 Nephi 5:15 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." This transference of marketable knowledge had two effects, one implicit and one explicit. The implicit effect of such instruction would be an economic advantage over other similarly sized hamlets in the region. The normal trade exchanges of hamlets would have passed the information quickly that there was a particular hamlet that had some real advantages. One may suppose that there were many of the "others" who would now come to join with the Nephites to take advantage of this economic advantage. As to the form of the metal-working, one may suppose that while the Old World informed the technique, the larger mass of Mesoamerican population would inform the style, so that we should not be surprised that what little metalworking or woodworking remains is stylistically Mesoamerican rather than Israelite. The explicit effect of this transfer of economic advantage is the increase in wealth of the Nephites. After Nephi’s death (55 years after leaving Jerusalem, perhaps less than 45 years after establishing a hamlet - Jacob 1:1) Jacob must preach against the pride of the Nephites in their wealth (Jacob 2:13). Thus we have a picture of a people moving from a subsistence hamlet to sufficient wealth in the general population (not localized in the hands of government - Nephi or Jacob) that Jacob must preach against it. This short time period, and the indication of the fairly widespread wealth suggests that there was both a large influx of population, and a center that became a trading station for other outlying hamlets. In particular, Nephi suggests that one of the buildings that was erected was a temple "after the manner" of Solomon’s temple (2 Nephi 5:16). This information is recorded prior to Nephi’s notation of 30 years passing from the departure from Jerusalem (2 Nephi 5:28) and therefore we have a major public building project begun and completed within the first 20 years of the community’s life. The realities of ancient life dictate that subsistence is the highest priority, and public building projects may be undertaken only when there is sufficient producing population to create enough of a surplus to allow both the absence of labor from the fields, and the sustenance of the workers. This suggests a very rapid increase in both wealth and population. While we have little information about the Lamanites, we may presume that they also exchanged information for position. They certainly become the political leaders of their community (at least in the eyes of the Nephites) and they have sufficient numbers within 20-30 years after the split with the Nephites to be able to carry on wars with the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:34). The very ability to carry on war bespeaks a fairly large population, as only able bodied men would be sent to fight a war, and they must have a stable economic base from which to work. The Lamanites also, therefore, appear to have gained a large number of people rather quickly, no doubt with a very similar means of the exchange of valuable information. The final social indicators are the positions of Nephi and Jacob as found at the end of Nephi’s life. Nephi is noted as a "king" but this must have been more honorific than befitting population. If we can use the title as an indicator, they would have a very significant population to actually have a "king." I am uncomfortable with that large a population, however, and it is sufficient that Nephi appears to be a specialist rather than simply a tribal headman. Additionally, there is sufficient population that the have not only a political specialist in Nephi, but a religious specialist in his brother Jacob (2 Nephi 6:2). The wealth and the luxury of social specialists suggests that at the very least, this probable hamlet of 10-30 households may have expanded to 300 households in the space of 40-45 years. This rapid expansion, and the wealth Jacob notes could not have occurred without outside populations. In the case of the wealth alone, wealth happens only if one possesses something of value to someone else. If all in the community have exactly the same things, it is not wealth. For example one might think that in a modern society a set of gold serving dishes might indicate wealth. However, if everyone had one, it would be commonplace. The very conception of wealth, then presupposes someone else who values what the Nephites have, and reinforces the argument for the Nephites interaction with other populations in the area - indeed, the assimilation of such populations (such as is suggested by that very speech of Jacob - as has been noted). In summary, at this point in the early history of the Nephites, the Nephite population would have grown from no more than 7 named households to perhaps 300 households (or more). They were still a single location, perhaps a medium to large village, with a continued dependence upon agriculture, but a flourishing trade with other communities (the source of wealth). The population was sufficiently large to allow for public building projects (the temple - though Nephi notes that it was not so fine as Solomon’s, and thereby tells us that they don’t have that much excess labor or wealth when the temple is built), and they were sufficiently large to allow for a separation of political and religious specialists. Religiously, we know that they were a people who were adopted into the house of Israel, both because of Jacob’s speech and Nephi’s affirmations that the Law of Moses was followed by his people. Therefore, the religious teachings of the Old World were taught to these "others" who had joined them, and at least at this early point, they were all nominally believers. There is no indication at this point in Nephite history of any mode of internal distinction. The boundaries of the society are the boundaries of the land of Nephi, and that designation "Nephite" is sufficient to mark insider and outsider. There is not yet sufficient population pressure to create internal divisions and groups. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1999 |
This origins of
the historical Nephites begins with the division of the clan into two factions. Thus our history begins with Lehi’s
clan, and begins anew with a portion of that clan that looks to Nephi for leadership.
|
|
 |