Well, as an aside on the post about Comoros, I pointed to the Mayan archaeological site of Lamanai in Belize as an example of an interesting parallel in Mesoamerican names with the Book of Mormon (perhaps just indicative of how the sword of chance can cut both ways). While it may have no real connection with the name Lamoni (or other names related to Laman) in the Book of Mormon, the interesting thing about Lamanai is that it is "one of the very few Maya sites for which the ancient name is recorded" according to a quotation I just received from the Journal of Field Archaeology:
Our choice of the site for intensive investigation was based on the presence there of a 16th-century secular Catholic church, the existence of which was first noted by Castells, who incorrectly identified the structure as Pre-Columbian. Castells' description of the church was, unhappily, the basis for Thompson's mention of a structure with round portal columns at the site, possibly reflecting Central Mexican influence in Western Belize. Though the church had been the source of some confusion, its presence demonstrated that Lamanai was inhabited in early historical times, and the possibility clearly existed that the occupation in that period represented the upper end of a continuum from the Classic (3rd to early 10th centuries A.C.) or earlier. There was ample evidence, in the form of obviously complex, large structural remains, to indicate that the site had probably been an important center during the Classic, so that excavation could be expected to provide insights into developments in the Central Maya Lowlands over a considerable period. Though the locale is generally known in Belize as Indian Church, a name apparently coined in the early 19th century, Lamanai is in fact one of the very few Maya sites for which the ancient name is recorded. It appears on a church list of 1582, and the site was visited and very sketchily described by Fathers Bartolome de Fuensalida and Juan de Orbita in 1618. (David Pendergast, "Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 1974-1980," Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 8 No. 1, [1981) pg. 29-30)I'll credit Dennis, the sender of this information, if I get his OK to mention his full name.
While the connection between Lamanai/Lamoni may be interesting, I think an important point is the reminder about just how few ancient Mesoamerican place names have been preserved. A given site may have been occupied by several different cultures since Book of Mormon times. Many interesting sites are known today only by Spanish names or relatively recent native names. But what was the place called in 100 B.C. or 200 A.D.? How was it pronounced? In so many cases, we still don't know. So for those critics who expect us to point to sites with names like Zarahemla and Nephi if the Book of Mormon is to be taken seriously, I urge a little more patience.
Oh, let me spare the need for about 20 critical posts with a pre-emptive snarky comment: "Ha! You'll have to be patient all the way into eternity if you're waiting for evidence of the trashy piece of fiction! Might as well wait for evidence that the moon is made of chese." To which I say, "If you can't even spell cheese right, try commenting somewhere else." And do realize that there are actually a great deal of potential evidences for authenticity of the Book of Mormon that the sincere seeker of truth might wish to consider, though nothing compares to the witness of the Spirit as one reads, ponders, and prays to know if that book is from God or just a work of a corrupt man.