Langford tradition and the process of tribalization on the middle Mississippian borders, The

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Spring 1999 by Emerson, Thomas E

Tribal and Ethnic Formation Processes

The current debate on tribal/ethnic formation can be characterized succinctly as varying between a "Rousseauean" perspective that credits the process to cooperative social and economic networks (e.g., Bender 1985; Braun and Plog 1982) and a more "Hobbesian" approach that credits intergroup conflict and competition (e.g., Carnerio 1970; Sahlins 1968; Service 1971). Such arguments over "prime movers" are not central to this discussion, since I hope to show that both the "causes" and the "results" of the processes of tribalization are extremely varied. Tribal and ethnic formation, disintegration, and reintegration were ongoing processes since at least Late Archaic times in the Midwest (cf. Emerson et al. 1986). These two models, however, are important because of the different implications they have for the "form" that tribal societies assume (Haas 1990a:172178). The "conflict" view of tribalization suggests that the process should be accompanied by evidence of increased intergroup violence, alliance building, networking, and, importantly, distinct spatial/social boundaries. Braun and Plog's networking model depends more heavily on intertribal integration via various alliances, the absence of intergroup conflict, and de-emphasizes the spatial and social boundedness of tribal units.

However, one point of agreement among many researchers looking at the processes involved in "tribalization" and "ethnicity" is that periods of environmental, social, or political stress are critical, and perhaps even necessary, accelerating factors (e.g., Creamer and Haas 1985; Ferguson 1990; Fried 1975; Haas 1990a; Hodder 1979,1982; Kimes et al. 1982; Sahlins 1968; Shennan 1989a). A primary source of social, political, and economic stress is along boundaries between societies with markedly different sociopolitical patterns, especially where conditions of asymmetrical power relations exist (cf. Champion 1989a). One reflection of such asymmetry may be an intensification of warfare (cf. Ferguson and Whitehead 1992b). There is little doubt that conditions of warfare are some of the most stressful that can overtake a society leading to dramatic transformations within its economic, social, religious, and political spheres.

Studies of the "tribalizing" effect of complex societies on surrounding less complexly organized groups have concentrated primarily on the effects exerted by states (e.g., Ferguson 1992; Ferguson and Whitehead 1992b; Fried 1975). Such research has demonstrated that the intrusion of states into areas of nonhierarchical societies generates the formation of tribal and ethnic units and intensifies patterns of trade and/or conflict. The effects of such interaction are not random but generally follow a recognizable pattern (Ferguson and Whitehead 1992a:13-16). This includes the "creation" of local authoritative leaders and recognizable bounded groups, conditions that, in turn, cause intra- and intergroup stress by disrupting existing kinship, social, economic, and political alliances. In addition these conditions serve to "crystallize existing oppositions," cause realignments of populations due to loss of members through warfare, and lead to the differential survival of groups.