I think it is true that contact with other tribes and the opportunity to trade increase the tendency to divide labor, but those facts don't necessarily lead to division of labor. Look at Native American tribes. The could have traded with each other, and certainly had opportunity to trade with the Europeans when they arrived and given up hunter gathering. Many (Most? All?) refused. The Utes here in Colorado are a good example. The whites tried to force them to become agricultural but the preferred to fight and die rather than become farmers. Would they have become farmers if the evolution had been 'natural' as opposed to imposed from outside (shades of Iraq!) I don't know. But they had existed for a long time with other tribes in close proximity to European labor-divided trading societies and did not seem overwhelmingly inclined to change their economic system.

There's a book by the anthropologist, Pierre Clastres called Society against the State. In there he closely examines the lives of South American hunter gatherer tribes and argues that their lives were more pleasing than the alternatives.
This leads me to wonder if Smith is overstating his case. Is he blinded by his own society and only sees the advantages of dividing labor and does not have a hunter/gatherer society in the immediate vicinity with which he could make a realistic comparison.
To put it another way, is it in fact that case that the transition from hunter/gatherer to the division of labor is not a very attractive change and that only some form of pressure will cause the transformation?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13