Exchange and social distance

The dominant ethnographic approach in twentieth-century substantivist anthropology contrasts non-western gifting and exchange with capitalist, market-oriented trade in alienable commodities. Malinowski (1922) describes forms of exchange ranging from pure gifts to trade with increasing self-interest and "equivalence" as one moves towards the trade relationship. Mauss (1990 [1925]) attacks the notion of the pure gift and instead focuses on the temporal aspects of gift-giving, with the establishment of what are effectively ancient forms of credit. Further, Mauss focuses on the sociality of gift exchange with the idea that gifting can take hostile forms by inflicting obligations that the recipient may fear. Sahlins (1972: 191) subsumes the sociality of exchange relationships into a single trajectory with the concept of social distance. The "social distance" between exchange partners is a way of conceiving of the degree of familiarity and information transfer between producer and consumer of goods.

Figure 2-1. Varieties of reciprocal exchange (after Sahlins 1972: 199).

In Sahlins' classic taxonomy of reciprocity he identifies generalized, balanced, and negative reciprocity as a continuum from gift through exchange to haggling and theft, with explicitly different moral standards applying to transfers occurring in each sector. These modes of reciprocity were mapped directly on to increasing social distance originating in the household, although Sahlins was unspecific about the institutional forms of exchange, allowing for wide cross-cultural variation.

Besides the functionalist underpinnings of Sahlins' approach, one critique of his social distance model rests on his distinction between the role of the state and social relationships based on economic ties.

Because Sahlins is constructing a general theory, he is not obligated to deal with the refractory ethnographic data of one particular group. Hence, Malinowski's multiple heterogeneous categories of gifting never arise. In its place, Sahlins has a single Big Idea developed in the famous chapter on Hobbes and Mauss. The idea is that economics is politics for primitives. The understructure of human society, the default, is the chronic insecurity of Hobbes' "war of all against all." Primitives lack the state that is Hobbes' preferred remedy (Danby 2002: 24).

The result for Sahlins rests on a weak dichotomy between primitive|modern economic contexts that includes (1) primitive contexts where relations are mediated by social and economic relationships, and (2) modern contexts given over to the logic of neoclassic economics because commercialization and the circulation of alienable commodities are qualitatively different. Danby presents instead a "post-colonial critique [that] sees gift|exchange as yet another mapping of primitive|modern, an ultimately tautologous them|us split in which 'they' are various negations of what 'we' think 'we' are" (Danby 2002: 32). Anthropologists have sometimes followed this dichotomy where long-term investment and the establishment of social relationships in transactions is given over to the gift side, while exchange in alienable commodities is expected in complex, state level economies where exchange transactions are analyzed following the neoclassical approach and spot transactions are conducted in open markets.

In contrast, Danby argues that, if anything, one should expect greater temporal complexity and mechanisms for extending forward credit with greater social complexity.

Rather than building theory by pushing off against neoclassical exchange, let us put neoclassical exchange aside... the asocial spot transactions on the right-hand ends of [Sahlins' (Figure 2-1)] gift-exchange continua are also marginal to wealthy capitalist economies. Forward, debt creating transactions, embedded in social relations that often entail power, are central. Moreover, they are likely to be socially embedded in a variety of ways that should lead us to rethink the dichotomies between non-gift and gift (Danby 2002: 28).

Instead of framing the anthropological discussion of exchange in opposition to neoclassical approaches, Danby argues that the discussion should be reframed around institutions that underlie transactions in society and provide the long-term temporal milieu within which transactions occur. Temporality is particularly important when exchange is framed by production calendars based in agricultural cycles and by social calendars centered on gatherings and ceremonial occasions. By this standard, goods lying on the inalienable end of the continuum are fundamental to examining all economies in an anthropological light.

Common goods and luxury goods

The inalienability or uniqueness of an object sometimes parallels the categories of common and luxury items, with common items being mutable and replaceable. Yet, the classification as 'common' or 'luxury' for a given object is not discrete. It has been widely observed that the distinction between common and luxury items is contingent in space and time.

The line between luxury and everyday commodities is not only a historically shifting one, but even at any given point in time what looks like a homogeneous, bulk item of extremely limited semantic range can become very different in the course of distribution and consumption...Demand is thus neither a mechanical response to the structure and level of production nor a bottomless natural appetite. It is a complex social mechanism that mediates between short- and long-term patterns of commodity circulation (Appadurai 1986: 40-41).

Appadurai presents sugar as an example of a product with widely varying significance, and he observes that it is not merely the possession of exotic goods, but also the social significance of the knowledge surrounding the production or consumption of these goods, that carries significance. Goods that are irregularly distributed in space, portable, and that have wide consumption appeal such as sugar, salt and obsidian, were transported great distances in prehistory. For example, in the Mantaro Valley of the central Andes, Bruce Owen (2001: 280) notes that a number of metal items such as copper needles went from being wealth goods found primarily in elite contexts prior to the Inka conquest, to being utilitarian items and found with equal frequency in commoner contexts under Inka rule.

The movement of commodities has the significant effect of reinforcing relationships between social groups in the sense that the Kula ring promotes regular contact (Malinowski 1984 [1922]). However, in circumstances where the elite strive to control consumption of commodities, exchange can threaten the position of the elite. In Appadurai's perspective, both rulers and traders are the critical agents in articulating supply and demand of commodities.

The politics of demand frequently lies at the root of the tension between merchants and political elites; whereas merchants tend to be the social representatives of unfettered equivalence, new commodities, and strange tastes, political elites tend to be the custodians of restricted exchange, fixed commodity systems, and established tastes and sumptuary customs. This antagonism between "foreign" goods and local sumptuary (and therefore political) structures is probably the fundamental reason for the often remarked tendency of primitive societies to restrict trade to a limited set of commodities and to dealings with strangers rather than with kinsmen or friends. The notion that trade violates the spirit of the gift may in complex societies be only a vaguely related by-product of this more fundamental antagonism (Appadurai 1986: 33).

The suggestion that exchange promotes contact that threatens elite control results from either a relatively independent group of traders, or competing elites that utilize external contacts to advance their positions. Appadurai's point, however, is that in the realm of political finance one might expect established elites to strive to exert greater control over the values of production and exchange rather than relegate this important issue to those who traffic in long-distance goods, such as caravan drivers.

Following Polanyi, one might expect to find that in complex, premodern societies without market-based exchange there was dominance of administered trade. However, a number of scholars have observed that Polanyi (1957) appears to have ruled out precapitalist commercialism in ancient states a priori, as he claimed that there were no true markets or prices that reflected supply and demand in the ancient world, but rather equivalences in value that were set by rulers in an administered context. These "dogmatic misconceptions" (Trigger 2003: 59) appear to have caused Polanyi to distort the historical evidence as his views of administered markets in premodern states have been widely refuted (Smith 2004: 75-76;Snell 1997). Historian Philip Curtin (1984: 58) observes that even within contexts of administered control traders may have had more freedom than previously thought.

In some regional contexts, such as the prehispanic Andes, Polanyi's interaction types continue to be viable because there is little evidence of commercialization and open markets. The prevailing interpretation of prehispanic economy, for the Inka period in the central Andes at least, is "supply on command" (LaLone 1982) with elite economic domination primarily through labor mobilization. This issue will be explored in more detail in the Chapter 3, but Andeanists have largely found that Polanyi's non-commercial typology of premodern exchange suffices for analyses of prehispanic Andean economies.

Exchange promotes interaction between communities, yet Appadurai also explains that "such a tendency is always balanced by a countertendency, in all societies, to restrict, control, and channel exchange" (1986: 38). Under the rubric of "politics of value" Appadurai describes a pattern of institutional or elite control of commerce monopolizing or redirecting the flow of commodities. On this issue Graeber characterizes Appadurai's 1986 framework as "neoliberal" and describes it as follows

Appadurai leaves one with an image of commerce (self-interested, acquisitive calculation) as a universal human urge, almost a libidinal, democratic force, always trying to subvert the powers of the state, aristocratic hierarchies, or cultural elites whose role always seems to be to try to inhibit, channel, or control it. It all rather makes one wish one still had Karl Polanyi (1944) around to remind us how much state power has created the very terms of what is now considered normal commercial life (Graeber 2001: 33).

Appadurai cites examples of historic royal monopolies and sumptuary laws restricting trade items in Rhodesia and renaissance Europe support his argument (Appadurai 1986: 38). However, without the state-organized overhead of basic institutions guaranteeing peace, investment, and the protection of property, the movement of goods would involve much more danger of theft by brigands or goods could be simply confiscated by rival authorities.

Appadurai's focus on consumption is a significant contribution in that it releases anthropologists to address activities specifically related to consumption behavior, even though the neglect of production presents an incomplete picture of economy. Consumption loci are often the contexts where the strongest evidence or patterning of interaction is found. Thus, consumption is particularly useful to archaeologists who may only have evidence of changing consumption patterns, or who must infer links between production and consumption indirectly.

Exchange in subsistence, cultural, and prestige technologies

The distinction between the circulation of common and luxury goods observed by anthropologists can be considered in terms of the larger economy and the organization of technology by linking these concepts to those of practical and prestige technologies. As described broadly by Hayden (1998), practical technologies are those that are primarily organized around principles of sufficiency and effectiveness, while the logic of prestige technologies is fundamentally different because it is oriented towards social strategies where greater labor investment in products serves to communicate the wealth, success, and power of the parties involved. A third category, termed cultural goods, will also be used to examine the relationship between material culture and exchange. The concepts of practical, cultural, and prestige goods will be used to link long term changes in the organization of technology and production with consumption patterns and socio-political evolution.

This framework is relevant to this discussion of anthropological approaches to exchange because it places the contrasting behavior that Appadurai terms "common" and "luxury" goods into an empirical and evolutionary framework capable of addressing change over long time periods. Thus while the earlier discussion of "luxury goods" that transcend social and political boundaries referred to particular contexts of circulation, these are specific manifestations of goods Hayden would include in the broad category of prestige technology, as these objects are labor intensive to produce or acquire.

The concepts of practical and prestige technologies parallel in some ways the economic distinction made by Earle (1987;1994) between subsistence and political economies. The household level subsistence economy is based on satisficing logic, while the political economy involves the mobilization of surpluses and competition between political actors, and is subject to the maximizing strategies of elites. The organization of technology is sometimes approached in terms of three groups as Binford (1962) has done with "technomic", "sociotechnic", and "ideotechnic" categories. For Binford, technomic objects correspond to "practical technology", and the sociotechnic and ideotechnic groups would largely, but not exclusively, overlap with "prestige technologies". Hayden (1998: 15) observes that labor inputs are low but sociotechnic significance is high in Australian Aboriginal string headbands that signal adult status, and labor is low but ideotechnic significance is high in a pair of crossed sticks tied together to represent a crucifix. Hayden points out that despite these exceptions, items of ritual and social significance are often made with relatively costly materials (such as gold crucifixes) but he admits that many items fall between his categories such as decorated antler digging-stick handles, and "the analysis of such objects becomes especially complex where the prestige materials such as metals or jade are actually more effective, but far more costly, than more commonly used materials" (Hayden 1998: 44-45). Obsidian presents a similar dilemma where, on the one hand it is rare in many regions, and it is unusual-looking, and yet it is also more effective for many kinds of cutting functions and so the inducement to use the material is not straight-forward. As an object can move between categories it should be said that ultimately the significance of an item is not an inherent property of the object, but rather it is created by contexts of use or consumption and should best be considered in terms of labor, exchangeability or life-history (Appadurai 1986;Graeber 2001).

Category	Distribution	Examples
Subsistence Goods	Practical technology. As a response to stresses item must be effective. Widely available, minimizing costs due to satisficing logic, distributed shorter distances.	Simple tools: axes, saws. Simple baskets and pottery. Bulky, low value foods (i.e., cereals, tubers). Common metals (later Old World prehistory).
Cultural Goods	Widely available goods, but with information content and social and ideological significance. Aesthetic but non-labor intensive and non-exclusive designs.	Some projectile technology. Textiles, shell, herbs and medicines such as coca leaf. Items for commonplace rituals.
Prestige Goods	High labor inputs, investment logic due to political potential of consuming labor, sometimes wide distribution in circumscribed contexts. Competition may mean that these are consumed or destroyed.	Rare metals; serving vessels: ceramics, baskets; jewelry; tailored clothing. Musical instruments, high value foods, rare or costly herbs and medicines.

Table 2-1. Three categories of exchange goods, the boundaries on these categories are contingent on contexts of production, circulation, and consumption. Many items like meat, maize, and obsidian tools can belong in any one of these groups depending on form and availability.

According to Hayden (1998: 44) any material that is transported more than two days should probably be considered a prestige technology due to labor investment, however he mentions that perhaps a useful intermediate category of "cultural goods" could be defined consisting of non-prestige ritual or social artifacts. In his analysis of long distance caravans in the Andes, Nielsen (2000: 66-67) borrows concepts from Hayden's practical and prestige technologies with some modification for a discussion of exchange goods. Nielsen defines "subsistence goods" and "prestige goods", but he also defines a third category as "cultural goods" to include maize used for subsistence but also for ritual, as well as coca and textiles. These goods are often non-exclusive, but their form and consumption carries significance and the circulation of such items does not conform to the satisficing logic of practical technologies and subsistence goods.

Ordinary goods and archaeological theory

The fact that many artifacts cannot easily be classified into one of the above groups in a particular time or cultural context shows the difficulties inherent in developing a generalized framework for addressing production and exchange through prehistory. Obsidian is a prime example of a material that has practical value, but it is visually distinct and it is also a material with cultural significance and prestige associations in some contexts. Thus, while the focus in exchange studies has been on prestige goods linked to status competition, because these activities have evolutionary consequences, subsistence goods may also contain social or cultural information. The association of items luxury or commonplace categories is a function of geography, technology, and socially defined valuation.