History: We should not be surprised that the Lamanites have taken formal possession of these lands which had been abandoned by the Limhites, or the Amulonites. Of more interest is the political system of multiple kings appointed by a superior kings. In ancient Mesoamerica, as elsewhere, the major political unit was the city. Like Greek city-states, each Mesoamerican city was a government unto itself. Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon records an organization involving various kings of the city-states. Later Maya city-states had comparable arrangements, based on intermarriage with other rulers or on the appointment of vassal rulers in conquered lands. Each separate city-state would retain its sovereignty but would acknowledge a loose loyalty to a common benefactor from a larger and more powerful city.
An important historical case of “beholding” relationships between city-states is the relationship between Tikal and Uaxactun in the fourth century A.D. as described by art historian Linda Schele and archaeologist David Freidel:
In the scenario we have reconstructed, forces from Tikal under the military leadership of Smoking-Frog, the brother of the high king, attacked and defeated the forces of their neighboring kingdom, Uaxactun, on January 16, 378. The victory placed Smoking-Frog on the throne of Uaxactun, where he oversaw the accession of his nephew, Curl-Snout, to Tikal’s throne on September 13, A.D. 379. For the next eighteen years, and perhaps as long as twenty-six years, Smoking-Frog ruled Uaxactun, possibly marrying into its ruling family as well. Even though Smoking-Frog ruled Uaxactun, however, he remained extremely important at Tikal. It’s possible he was the overall ruler of the new combined kingdom that resulted from his victory in battle.
This arrangement seems similar to that among the Lamanite kings. Each city would have its own king, but there would be a formal relationship with another city, and perhaps an overall “king” who dominated one or more “beholding” cities. Simon Martin, honorary research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, and Nikolai Grube, professor of anthropology and art history at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Bonn, summarize:
Over the years scholars have differed both about the size of Maya polities, whether there were just a few regional-scale states or many small statelets; and their corresponding administrations, whether they had strong, centralized governments or weak, decentralized ones. As a result there has been a choice between two contrasting views of Maya society. But the emergence of new information from the inscriptions, in which the Maya directly describe their political world, allows a reassessment of the topic. Our own research… points to a pervasive and enduring system of “overkingship” that shaped almost every facet of the Classic landscape. Such a scheme accords closely with wider Mesoamerican practice, while seeming to reconcile the most compelling features of the two existing views, namely the overwhelming evidence for multiple small kingdoms and the great disparities in the size of their capitals.