Many historians describe the rise of the state as a naturally evolved response to the problem of feuds. For them, the creation of state-monopolized justice is a preferred alternative to growing and unending violent conflict. This paper provides a process description of the feud to counter this perspective. The economic process of the feud supports updating state-origin historian’s definition of the feud to be compatible with the way feud historians use the term. Feuds have the potential and tendency to self-resolve without state monopolized enforcement.

 

I plan to rewrite this paper to be more focused on the economic history of the feud.  I will take a multiple case study approach.  An hope to demonstrate why feud historians have a more believable description of the feud over state historians. Feuds historians show the feud as a mechanism to resolve conflict where as state historians describe the feud as never ending and escalating.