11.3 Northern Central American Ceramic Units and the Land of Nephi
by Bruce W. Warren
Introduction
Recently, several Book of Mormon scholars have published some of
their research on the geography of the Book of Mormon. These works
have all placed the Land of Nephi in highland Guatemala (Palmer
1981:176; Sorenson 1985:1214,141-48,229-30; Hauck 1988:9,143; and
Allen 1989:359-70).
A couple of recent research concepts have been developed for using
ceramics more effectively in historical and cultural reconstructions of the
past. These two concepts are in the literature as "utilitarian ceramic
tradition" (Hatch 1988:151-70) and "ceramic spheres" (Willey, Culbert,
and Adams 1967:289315). A "utilitarian ceramic tradition" refers to
locally made domestic ceramics that involves the same clay deposits
and craftspersons using the same techniques of manufacture over long
periods of time, i.e., several generations. The "ceramic sphere" concept
refers to fine ware or nondomestic ceramics of the same cultural style
that have spread over a large territory implying economic and political
influence from a common center(s).
I will deal with five "utilitarian ceramic traditions" and one "ceramic
sphere" dating to the Late Preclassic and Protoclassic periods of the
highlands of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. The timespan
involved is from about 250 B.C. to A.D. 250. The geographical
clustering of these ceramic traditions and the one ceramic
sphere should have an important role in defining the location of the land
of Nephi and other areas that the people in the land of Nephi were
interacting with economically and politically.
Unfortunately, the archaeological literature for Mesoamerica is full of
chronological charts that use variant terminology. Table I will give my
version of labels for Mesoamerica as a whole and present in parallel
columns the chronological labels for the local KaminaIjuyu, Guatemala
and Chalchuapa, El Salvador archaeological sequences.
Locating the five ceramic traditions
and one ceramic sphere
I will approach this task by starting in the northwestern part of our area
of concern and proceeding to the southeastern limits of this area. The
ceramic traditions will be analyzed first and the ceramic sphere last.
The Naranjo Ceramic Tradition. This utilitarian ceramic tradition is
confined to the south coast (Pacific) of southeastern Chiapas, Mexico,
and the western half of the south coast of Guatemala (see Map 1). The
region is usually referred to as the "Soconusco" in Mesoamerican
literature. It runs from Mapastepec, Chiapas to the river Naranjo on the
southwest coast of Guatemala.
Hatch (1988:154) begins the Naranjo tradition in the Early Preclassic
Arevalo Phase or earlier (early Middle Preclassic on Table 1) and
persists until about 950 A.D. at the close of the Terminal Classic Period.
The publications relevant to this ceramic tradition, as well as the other
ceramic traditions, are grouped separately in the bibliography at the end
of this article.
The language affiliation for this region was probably Mixe (Clark
1991:13; Lowe 1977:199202; and Kaufman 1976).
The Achiguate Ceramic Tradition. Map I shows this tradition as
confined to the area of three rivers on the south coast of Guatemala.
The three rivers from west to east are the Coyolate, the Achiguate, and
the Maria Linda.
The Achiguate ceramic tradition lasted from
the Las Charcas phase to the Amatle R phase (900 B.C. to A.D. 600).
The language affiliation of the Achiguate group is very problematic but a
reasonable speculation would be proto-Lenca(?).
Map I Development of the Ceramic Traditions during the Middle
Preclassic Period, 900-250 B.C.
The Las Vacas Ceramic Tradition. During the Providencia Phase
(450-200 B.C.) this ceramic tradition was located in the central highland
departments of Guatemala, Sacatepequez, and Chimaltenango in
Guatemala (see Map 1). In the following Verbena Phase the Las Vacas
tradition was restricted to the department of Guatemala (Hatch
1988:156).
The duration of the Las Vacas ceramic tradition is from about 450 B.C.
until it disappears abruptly around 150 A.D. and is replaced by the
Solano ceramic tradition (Hatch ibid., pages 15756).
Edmonson (1988:103,123,189, and 264) assigns Proto-Xinca as the
probable language affiliation of KaminaIjuyu residents. Thus the Las
Vacas ceramic tradition people may have been familiar with the ProtoXinca language.
The Solano Ceramic Tradition. Northwestern highland Guatemala, in
the area of present day Quiche and Cakchiquel Maya peoples, was the
homeland of the creators of the Solano Ceramic Tradition (see Map 1).
The history of the Solano Ceramic Tradition begins as early as 900
B.C., if not earlier, and persists to 950 A.D. and perhaps to the Spanish
Conquest (Hatch op. cit., pp. 158,165).
The language affiliation appears to be Quiche
Mayan from the beginning to the end of this tradition (Josserand 1975:
Fig. Q.
The Uapala Ceramic Tradition. This ceramic tradition is not as well
studied as the above examples but involves eastern El Salvador and
western Honduras (Andrews V 1976:180-81 and Baudez 1986:339 (see
Map 2). Typical archaeological sites assigned to this Uapala Ceramic
Tradition are Quelepa in eastern El Salvador, Copan, Yarumela, Los
Nararijos, and Santa Rita in Honduras (Demarest and Sharer 1986:21213).
This loosely defined Uapala Ceramic Tradition dates between ca. 500
B.C. to A.D. 900. The Proto-Lenca and Proto-Jicaque languages share
the same territory as the Uapala Ceraimic Tradition. According to
Edmonson (198 8:123) the Jicaque calendar began 21 December 57
B.C. and is a typical example of a Mesoamerican calendar.
The Miraflores Ceramic Sphere. Willey, Culbert, and Adams 1967:306
define a ceramic sphere as follows: "The concept of ceramic sphere
was defined to emphasize a high degree of content similarity between
complexes. A ceramic sphere exists when two or more complexes
share a majority of their most common types. Whereas the horizon need
imply no more than a few connections at the modal level, the sphere
implies high content similarity at the typological level."
Based on the above definition of a ceramic sphere Demarest and
Sharer (1986) and Hatch (1988) have mapped a Miraflores ceramic
sphere covering eastern highland and coastal Guatemala and western
E I Salvador (see Map 2 and 3). The time span for this ceramic sphere
is between 250 B.C. and A.D. 150.
The Miraflores, Ceramic Sphere represents the regional interaction
between the Las Vacas and Achiguate Ceramic Traditions. This
situation would imply a possible Xinca-Lenca language affiliation for the
Miraflores Ceramic Sphere.
Besides a sharing of ceramic ideas there is also a sharing of ideas in
figurines, sculpture and iconography, censer complexes, lithic
assemblages, and site layouts. Demarest and Sharer (1986:220)
conclude:
Such a sharing of ideas ... suggests that the artifactual patterns
could actually reflect a culturally-unified population in the Late
Preclassic period-possibly a single linguistic or ethnic group. This
hypothesis of an ethnically and/or linguistically unified southeast
highland culture area is suggested by: 1) close similarities in most
aspects of the artifactual assemblages at each site; 2) clear
differences with sites outside of the southeast highland region;
and 3) the negation by [Neutron] activation analysis of the
hypothesis that mass production and long-distance trade were the
primary causes of the shared ceramic features. Indeed, if there is
any relationship,
however imperfect, between ethnic or linguistic patterns and
material culture, then the degree of commonality in the material
culture of these sites is sufficient to imply that a single ethnic or
even linguistic group occupied the entire region in the Late
Preclassic period. . ..
Correlation Problems for the Book of Mormon.
First, it should be pointed out that the Naranjo Ceramic Tradition, The
Achiguate Ceramic Tradition, and the Solano Ceramic Tradition were all
in place before the arrival of the Lehi colony in Ancient Mesoamerica.
These ceramic traditions probably represent indigenous or native
populations that would be encountered by the Lehi colony people.
Since Kaminaljuyu is the proposed site of Nephi in our model of Book of
Mormon geography, our focus will be on this site and its interaction with
other nearby areas. There was a virtual absence of ceramics and
obsidian at Kaminaljuyu prior to the Arevalo and Las Charcas phases
(1150-450 B.C.) according to Wetherington (1978:190). He points out
that there were no mounds, a lack of civic architecture, and surprisingly
few occupational components (Libid., page 123). During the Las
Charcas phase (900450 B.C.) KaminaIjuyu became an incipient
regional center with a population of about 1000 individuals (Michels
1979:135). There is evidence of household stratification and the houses
were located near a small lake that existed at Kamina]juyu during the
Arevalo and Las Charcas phases (ibid., Figure 43).
Wetherington believes that the initial settlement of Kaminaluyu resulted
from a population expansion from the southern piedmont and coastal
area of Guatemala (gp. cit., page 190). Demarest and Sharer
(1986:213-14) see many similarities in the Arevalo and Las Charcas
ceramic types to the Colos and Kal ceramic complexes at Chalchuapa,
El Salvador (see Map 3). These ceramic similarities include examples of
Usulutan pottery that probably originated at Chalchuapa according to
Demarest and Sharer. These facts would suggest that the people
involved in the first settlement of Kaminaljuyu were of Proto-Lenca
speech.
When Nephi and his party arrived at Nephi, they probably represented
no more than two dozens souls. They were a definite minority if the
population of Kamina1juyu at the time of their arrival was around 1,000
individuals (see above). It would seem apparent that Nephi and his
party made friends with the local population. Nephi obviously was
received with high regard since he was made a king (2 Ne. 5:18). Would
Nephi be made a king over just his own people who were vi-ru fi-ui in n"tr i-r?
As noted above during the Providencia phase (450-200 B.C.), the Vacas Ceramic
Tradition at Kaminaljuyu spread into the area of present-day Guatemalan departments of
Guatemala, Sacatepequez, and Chimaltenango with Guatemala City, Antigua, and
Chimaltenango being the main communities today in these three departments. During the
Verbena phase (200-1 B.C.) the Las Vacas Ceramic Tradition was restricted to just the
department of Guatemala. This archaeological situation parallels the Book of Mormon
account in that around 200 B.C., Mosiah led some Nephite followers from Nephi to
Zarahemla, and just a few years later a small party of Nephites under the leadership of
Zeniff returned to the city of Nephi. Perhaps Mosiah's Nephites came from the
departments of
Guatemala, Sacatepequez, and Chimaltenango and Zeniff's party returned to occupy an area in the
department of Guatemala.
As the Lamanites crowded into and surrounded the Nephites of King Zeniff, Noah, and Limhi, we would
expect this situation to be reflected in the archaeological record of the central highlands of Guatemala.
Sorenson (1985:221-26) suggests that the Book of Mormon lands of Nephi, Shemlon, Middoni, and
Ishmael be located in Kaminaljuyu, Arnatitlan, Antigua, and Chimaltenango respectively (see Figures I and
2). The Pennsylvania State archaeological project defined Chiefdoms at Kaminaljuyu, Amatitlan, and
Chimaltenango (Figure 1). However, they did not investigate the Antigua area and this area needs
archaeological investigation.
The language of the Quiche Maya was not directly involved in the Kamina1juyu area
during the period of Nephite occupation. Marion Hatch (1988:162-64) in summarizing
the domestic pottery traditions of Prehistoric Guatemala concludes that in the
Protoclassic or Santa Clara period (150-300 A.D.) a new group completely replaced the
previous people in the valley of Guatemala. These new people were Quiche Maya
speakers.
The best evidence for this drastic change comes from Kaminaljuyu. The direction of this takeover is to the
northwest in the Guatemalan highlands. More specifically, the area from Lake Atitlan north to
Huehuetenango is the source of these Quiche Maya invaders.
Hatch also points out that the Protoclassic development in Belice and the eastern Peten of Guatemala did
not originate in an invasion from El Salvador as previously thought but was in part a native development
and in part an influence on the elite leadership of the area from the same Quiche Mayan group of highland
Guatemala.
Conclusions
The model of Book of Mormon geography being developed suggests that of the five ceramic traditions and
one ceramic sphere discussed above (see Maps 1-3), only the Las Vacas Ceramic Tradition fits the time and
place requirements of our model. The Las Vacas Ceramic Tradition in time interacts strongly with the
Achiguate Ceramic Tradition to form the Miraflores Ceramic Sphere. This suggests that the peoples of the
Achiguate tradition were friendlier to the residents of Kaminaljuyu and the valley of Guatemala. It also
implies that these friendlier ties in time involved western E 1 Salvador.
The interaction of the Kaminaljuyu peoples with the peoples Naranjo and Solano Ceramic Traditions were
much less intense and probably not so friendly. The Uapala Ceramic Tradition of eastern El Salvador and
western Honduras was even more remote to the inhabitants of the valley of Guatemala during Preclassic,
Protoclassic, and Early Classic or during Book of Mormon times.
Kaminaljuyu is looking better all the time as a good candidate for the city of Nephi.
References
Introduction
Andrews V.E. Wyllys. 1977. The Southeastern Periphery of Mesoamerica: A View from Eastern
El Salvador. In
Social Process in Mgya Prehis!M: Studies in Honor of
Sir Eric lboMpson, ed. by Norman Hammond, pp. 11334. Academic Press: New York.
Borhegyi, Stephan F. 1965a. Archaeological Synthesis of the Guatemalan Highlands. Handbook
of Middle American Indians, vol. 2:3-58. University of Texas Press: Austin.
1965b. Settlement Patterns of the Guatemalan Highlands. Handbook of Middle American Indians
vol. 2:59-75. University of Texas Press: Austin.
Campbell, Lyle. 1977. Ouichean Linggistic Prehisim. University of California Publications in
Linguistics, No. 81.
Carmack, Robert M. 1973. Ouichean Civilization: The Ethnohistoric, Ethnogrgphic, and
Archaeological Sources. University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Coe, Michael D. & Kent V. Flannery. 1967. Early Cultures and Human Ecology in South Coastal
Guatemala. Smithsonian Institution, Contributions to Anthropology, No. 3.
Edmonson, Munro S. 1988. The Book of the Year: Middle American Calendrical Systems.
University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT.
Hatch, Marion Popenoe. 1988. La Importancia de la Ceramica Utilitaria en Arqueologia, con
Observaciones sobre la Prehistoria de Guatemala. Anales de la Academia de QpNrafia e Historia
de Guatemala, torno LXH:151-70.
Kaufman, Terrence S. 1976. Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and
Associated Areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology, No. 8:101-18.
Lowe, Gareth W., Thomas A. Lee & Eduardo Martinez E. 1982. Izgpa: An Introduction to the
Ruins and Monuments. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, No. 31. New World
Archaeological Foundation: Provo, UT.
Michels, Joseph W. 1979. The Karninaluym Chiefdo
Pennsylvania State University Press: State College, PA.
Reina, Ruben E. & Robert M. Hill, 11. 1978. The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala. University of
Texas Press: Austin, TX.
Sharer, Robert J. 1974. The Prehistory of the Southeastern Maya Periphery. Current
Anthropology, vol. 15, No. 2:165-87.
Wallace, Dwight T. & Robert M. Carmack, eds. 1977. Archaeology and EthnohistoKy of the
Central Quiche Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of
New York: Albany, New York.
Willey, Gordon R., T. Patrick Culbert & Richard E.W. Adams. 1967. Maya Lowland Ceramics: A
Report from the Guatemala City Conference. American Antiguity, vol. 32:289-315.
The Naraixio Ceramic Tradition
Clark, John E. 1991. The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early
Formative. In The Formation of Cgmplex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, ed. by William
R. Fowler, Jr. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.
Coe, Michael D. 1961. La Victoria: An Early Site on the Pacific Coast of Guaternal . Harvard
University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers, vol. 53.
Coe, Michael D. & Kent V. Flannery. 1967. Early Cultures and Human Ecology in South Coastal
Guatemala. Smithsonian Institution, Contribution to Anthropology, No. 3.
Ekholm, Susanna M. 1969. Mound 30a and the Early Preclassic Ceramic Seguence at Izapa,
Chigpas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological, No. 25. New World Archaeological
Foundation: Provo, UT.
Hatch, Marion Popenoe. 1987. Proyecto Tiquisate: Recientes Investigaciones Arqueologicas en la
Costa Sur de Guatemala. Cuadernos de Investigacion, No. 2. Universidad de San Carlos,
Guatemala.
Lowe, Gareth W. 1977. The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland Maya. In
The Origins of Mgya Civilization, ed. by Richard E. W. Adams. A School of American Research
Book. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM.
Shook, Edwin M. & Marion Popenoe Hatch. 1979. The Early Preclassic Sequence in the OcosSalinas La Blanca Area: South Coast of Guatemala. In University of California Archaeological
Research Facilijy, Contributions 41:143-95.
The Achiguate Ceramic Tradition
Demarest, Arthur A. 1986. The Archaeology of Santa Leticia and the Rise of Maya Civilization.
Middle American Research Institute, Publication 52. Tulane University: New Orleans, LA.
Demarest, Arthur A. & Robert J. Sharer. 1986. Late Preclassic Ceramic Spheres, Culture Areas,
and
Cultural Evolution in the Southeastern Highlands of Mesoamerica. In 71be Southeast Maya
Periphpa, ed. by Patricia A. Urban and Edward M. Schortman. University of Texas Press: Austin,
TX.
Shook, Edwin M. & Marion Popenoe Hatch. 1978. The Ruins of El Balsaino. Journal of New
World Archaeology, Vol. III, No. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California: Los
Angeles, CA.
The Las Vacas Ceramic Tradition
Shook, Edwin M. 1951. The Present Status of Research on the Pre-Classic Horizons in Guatemala.
In Civilization of Ancient America: Selected Pgpers of the 29th International Congress of
Americanists, ed. by Sol Tax, pp. 93-100. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, EL.
Shook, Edwin M. & Alfred V. Kidder. 1952. Mound E-Ill3, Kamina1juyu, Guatemala.
Contributions to American Anthro
.pology and HisIM, No. 53, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 574, pp. 1-92.
Washington, D.C.
Wetherington, Ronald K., editor. 1978. The Ceramics of Kaminaligym, Guatemala. Pennsylvannia
State University Press: University Park, PA.
The Solano Ceramic Tradition
Butler, Mary. 1962. A Pottery Sequence from the Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. In The MUa and their
Neighbors, pp. 250-67. University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT.
Icon, A. & M. C. Amauld. 1985. Le Protoclassigue a La Laguni . Centre Nacional de la Recherche
Scientifigue, Institut D'Ethnologie, Paris.
Josserand, Judy K. 1975. Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations for Maya Prehistory. In
Actas de XLI Congeso Internacional de Americanistas, vol. 1, pp. 501-10. Mexico City, D.F.
Kidder, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings & Edwin M. Shook. 1946. Excavations at . Kaminaljuyu,
Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 561.
Shook, Edwin M., Marion Popenoe Hatch & J. K. Donaldson. 1979. Ruins of Semetabaj,
Department Solola, Guatemala. Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facili1y, University
of California, No. 41. Berkeley.
Smith, A. Ledyard & Alfred V. Kidder. 195 1. Excavations at Nebaj, Guatemala. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Publication 594.
Wauchope, Robert. 1975. Excavations at Zacualpa, El Quiche, Guatemala: An Ancient Provincial Center of
the Highland Maya. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 39. Tulane University: New Orleans,
LA.
Woodbury, Richard B. & Audrey S. Trik. 1953. The Ruins of Zaculeu, Guatemala, Vols. I and 2. William
Bird Press: Richmond, VA.
The Uavala Ceramic Tradition
Andrews, E. Wyllys, V. 1976. The Archaeology of Quelepa, El Salvador. Middle American Research
Institute, Publication 42. Tulane University: New Orleans, LA.
Baudez, Claude F. 1986. Southeast Mesoamerican Periphery: Summary Comments. In The Southeast Mpya
Perij2hpa, ed. by Patricia A. Urban and Edward M. Schortman. University of Texas Press: Austin, TX
Baudez, Claude F. & Pierre Becquelin. 1973. Archeologie de Los Naranios, Honduras. Mission
Archeologique et Ethnologique Francaise au Mexique. Vol. H, Etudes Americanes: Mexico.
Canby, Joel. 1949. Excavations at Yarumela, Spanish Honduras. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Cheek, Charles. 1983. Las Excavaciones en la Plaza Principal: Resumen y Conclusiones. In Introduccion a
la AMueologia de Copan, Vol. 2. SECTUR, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Dernarest, Arthur A. & Robert J. Sharer. 1982. The Origin and Evolution of the Usulutan Ceramic Style
American Antiqui1y, 46:810-22.
Demarest, Arthur A., V. Roy Switsur, & Reiner Berger. 1982. Dating and Cultural Associations of the
PotBellied Sculptural Style. American Antiqqi~ty, 97:55771.
Fash, William L., Jr. 1983. Deducing Social Organization from Classic Maya Settlement Patterns: A Case
Study from the Copan Valley. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R.
Willey, Richard M. Leventhal and Alan L. Kolata, eds., pp. 261-88. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology,. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM.
Kennedy, Nedenia C. 198 1. The Formative Period Ceramic Sequence from Playa de los Muertos,
Honduras. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champagne, IL. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Leventhal, Richard M. 1979. Settlement Patterns at Copan, Longyear, John M., 111. 1952. Coan Ceramics~
A Study o
Honduras. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, Southeastern Mgya Pottery. Carnegie
Institution of
Washington, Publication No.597. Washington, D.C.
TABLE 1
Mesoamerica Kaminaliuvu Chalghuapa
Modern Period: 1810-present
Colonial Period:
1520-1810
Late Postclassic Period: (Chinuatla Phase) Ahal Phase
1250-1520
Early Postclassic Period: Ayampuc Phase Matzin Phase
950-1250
Terminal Classic Period: Arnatle III Phase Payu Phase
800-950
Late Classic Period: Amatle H Phase Payu Phase
600-800
Middle Classic Period: Amatle I Phase Xocco Phase
400-600
Early Classic Period: Aurora Phase Vec Phase
300-400
Protoclassic Period: Santa Clara Phase Vec Phase
150-300
Terminal Preclassic Period: Arenal Phase Caynac Phase
1-150 A.D.
Late Preclassic Period: Verbena Phase Caynac Phase
250-1 B.C.
Middle Preclassic Period:
IV: 450-250 Providencia Phase Chul Phase
111: 900-450 Las Charcas Phase Kal Phase
Il: 1150-900 Arevalo Phase Colos Phase
1: 1350-1150 Tok Phase
Early Preclassic Period:
111: 1650-1350 11: 1850-1650 1: 2500-1850