I generally find these comparison charts by mormon apologist laughable. IF there was such a strong correlation to the bom - why does archaeology still relate a completely different story.
Take the Olmec. IF the bom story is true, then evidence for the end of the Olmec culture should be well documented as due to a massive genocidal war that completely kills all but one person.
There is no archaeological evidence of a war. Evidence points to an environmental crisis that forced the population centers to move. Due probably in part to the Olmecs practice of swidden (or slash-and-burn) agriculture to clear the forests and shrubs, and to provide new fields once the old fields were exhausted.
Zarahemla Research Foundation
Also likes to try to superimpose a hebraic / semetic linguistic development chart upon the mayan cultural development. Clearly this view is not held by modern archaeologists. Probably the most recognized scholar on Central America - Michael Coe - views the Olmec as the mayan predecessors, and if this is the case, then the Olmec didn't genocidally kill each other off as described in the bom. Other linguists have traced the trend from the Olmec language into the later Mayan linguistic groups. What is missing - anything resembling Hebrew / egyptian / or anything resembling a semitic / middle eastern linguistic system.
The Zarahemla Research Foundation is convinced that Mesoamerica is the area in which Book of Mormon peoples lived
They may be 'convinced', they are shy any real scholarship in the field. There is not a single professional article for a peer reviewed journal evidenced, nor is there evidence that the members hold any credible associated scientific degrees in the fields of archaeology or linguistics.
And in closing, there are many other similar mormon 'research' organizations that are convinced that the bom lands lie in other areas.
I do not believe that you are thoroughly familiar with everything that goes on in Mesoamerican archaeology. I know that at least one member of ZRF has a degree in archaeology and that another is very knowledgeable in the field of liguistics. ZRF has accomplished something that no other set of scholars have accomplished, completing an edition of the Book of Mormon that is founded on both of the manuscripts, the original dictated manuscript (only partially preserved) and the original printer's manuscript (completely preserved and on display to the general public in the Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri, and on microfilm in the Temple's library). So impressive is ZRF's Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon that it has inspired the Mormon church to move their edition closer to the original manuscripts.
And in closing, there are many other similar mormon 'research' organizations that are convinced that the bom lands lie in other areas.
Some use the massive upheavals during the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as an excuse for saying that Book of Mormon lands were altered from what is described in the Book of Mormon. But they overlook the fact that the chief description of Book of Mormon lands was written by Mormon centuries after the upheaval. As a military general Mormon was completely familiar with geography. ZRF has been painstakingly studying Book of Mormon geographical references. Their Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon has a concordance of all geographical references to make study of the subject easier.
No area of the American continents fits the requirements of Book of Mormon peoples having lived in it better than Mesoamerica. Not only does Book of Mormon chronology fit into Mesoamerican chronology, but the Book of Mormon's statements on geography cannot fit any other place in America. One has to account for traveling distances between places, which lands border which seas, differences in elevation (from the Land of Nephi one must go north and "down" to the Land of Zarahemla), etc.