This paper comments on the epochal change in the self-representation of tribal groups through Internet discussion boards and other sources. Over the last decade, with the spread of Internet access even among rural communities, a growing number of indigenous testimonies and perspectives on the social history of tribes have been published offering a new form of narrative and interpretation. Using self-censored discussion forums and bulletin boards, tribal members conceptualize identities across political and hierarchical boundaries. They provide a refreshing catalyst for the bi-polar debate between oral and written (documented) history over questions of descent, identity, cohesion, or inter-tribal relations. Though anthropologists have usually relied on participant observation of native practices, rituals or social dynamics, it is surprising to note the current neglect of considering tribal outreach forums a valuable methodological source. While the use of new media technologies and its impact on societies has been acknowledged by scholars (Eickelman, Kraidy), the same cannot be found for Internet-based sources. However, the IT-revolution has brought a rapid transformation of values and customs as well as the public discourse about them. Obviously, working with online texts raises a number of questions; some of them will be addressed in this paper, such as the origin of the writer, the targeted audience, the reliability of the sources, the issue of networking, or the impact on the community, both virtual and real. This paper analyses the content of two forums of largely Arabian tribes with primary focus on the Anazah tribe and secondary, comparative focus on the Shammar. It is argued that those forums create unpredictable outcomes regarding the position of tribes in the national context, while providing a medium of exchanging contrasting views undermining the state's monopoly on information. The paper concludes with further remarks on the dichotomy between online publishing and hard copy prints of tribal history.

Since the 1970s an increasing number of TV series dealing with Bedouin culture and society - usually designated as musalsal bedawi - has been produced by the Syrian and Jordanian film industries. Many of the contemporary musalsals which address a wide range of historical, social and political issues are written, directed, produced, and enacted, by Bedouins themselves. This gives rise to the question whether such movies promote new images about "Bedouinity" and modern tribal identities. Generally, the contemporary musalsals are narrating historical events which are reinterpreted from a Bedouin point of view and in which the Bedouins themselves appear as the major locus of historical agency. Thus, the present paper raises the questions whether such stories may be understood as representing counter narratives to mainstream history. This brings forward additional questions: Who decides upon the selection of the scripts? What tribal segment(s) claim to have the authority over such counter narratives? What are the constraints that Bedouin film makers are exposed to when conceptualizing the story lines? This last question has to be adressed in particular since the audiences of these TV series are situated in highly politicized nation states which are subject to complex power-configurations. Often, the production of the musalsals is financed by high-ranking Bedouin sheikhs or tribal segments from the Gulf countries, thereby promoting their own vision on the interpretation of historical "events". Though the musalsals are subject to the interplay of status and power, they are consumed and debated by a highly diverse group of customers whose own interpretions are depending on social class, gender, age, and their affiliation to different tribal groups and/or segments. It is thus important to analyze the diverging ideas and interpretations that the adressees put forward with regard to the musalsals and who thereby generate new meanings which the producers, directors and script writers initially never intended. In some cases, the competing interpretations of the musalsals have even led to the outbreak of new intertribal conflicts in some of the Middle Eastern nation states. Being based on anthropological research undertaken among Jordanian and Syrian film makers, financees, and consumers, the present paper aims at demonstrating the complexity of this seemingly unproblematic field of the Bedouin film industry by tracing the motivations and intentions of the various participants and their entanglement in relations of power, conflict, and competing claims of authority over the interpretation of the past.

From the mid-eighteenth until the mid-twentieth century, the tribal confederation of the `Anaza was a major political and military factor in the Syrian steppe. The Ottoman government and later the French Mandate administration tried to co-opt the leading `Anaza shaykhs in their effort to control the vast steppe lands and their inhabitants. Officials from both states had difficulties understanding the internal organization of the Bedouin tribes. Within the tribes, the knowledge of loyalty and legal provisions, which governed social and political life in the steppe, was memorized by specialists in genealogy and law. Usually, they were reluctant to reveal this knowledge to outsiders. Since the 1990s, however, authors from different Syrian `Anaza tribal groups published a number of books which present the oral tradition of their group to a wider public. Among these were collections of poetry, genealogical encyclopedias, works on Bedouin law, or historical accounts. Often, these subjects were intertwined and related to each other. What image of the tribe did the authors present to the public? Which motivations did they name for their literary production? The paper focuses on what was probably the first monograph devoted to the history of an `Anaza group in Syria, a history of the Hasana tribe, which was published in 1993. The author, Hasan al-Khudayr al-Muqbil, was a member of the Hasana and a retired lieutenant of the Syrian army. The paper first provides an overview of the book's content and form. It then compares the source to other recent publications on `Anaza groups in an attempt to describe general characteristics of the new and very productive genre of indigenous tribal histories.

Since the 1980s a large volume of literature on tribes and the Bedouin has appeared in Jordan. It was the outcome of the expansion of the educational state system and the spread of literacy to the tribal countryside and prompted by the construction of 'official' Jordanian nationalism -- all developments of the 1970s. This literature includes studies of tribal customary law, works of poetry and folklore as well as tribal genealogies. In addition, in recent years local and foreign anthropologists and historians have collected oral testimonies from tribespeople. In order to assess the potential value of this new source to the writing of tribal histories, this paper revisits several episodes in the history of the Bani Sakhr tribal confederation during the mandate period. This tribal confederacy was the most important political power in areas which would become part the Emirate of Transjordan in 1921. As such the confederacy and its leaders played a crucial role in shaping the history of the emirate during the 1920s and 1930s. By exploring the case study of the Bani Sakhr, this study shows that in order to make use of the recent tribal literature and oral histories it is necessary to contextualize them not just once, but twice: a first context is historical, namely the Emirate's state-formation process steered by Emir Abdullah bin Hussein and the British authorities. This can be done by weighing the evidence from the tribal literature against a wide range of written sources as well as employing theoretical insights from the scholarly literature The second context is the that of the socio-political environment in which this material was produced. In contemporary Jordan, the issue of tribal history is politicized and sensitive. Since many of the leading families from the mandate still form an important part of the current elite, their histories need to be seen as part of their competition for Hashemite favors. In addition, tribal history emphasizes, by definition, division (along kinship and tribal lines) rather than uniformity and may undermine the hegemonic Hashemite narrative of nation-building. Although this new source should not be consulted independently, it can surely offer some important leads to be pursued and substantiated by other sources. Therefore, employing local perspectives promises to enrich our understanding of the history of tribes as well as to shed new light on the current political structure of the kingdom and its cultural foundations.