Adaptationalist explanations for the origins and significance of long distance caravan networks are unsatisfactory, yet the more explicit aggrandizer models for the rise of elite-administered caravans that are documented ethnohistorically, refer to a regional-scale phenomenon that occurred relatively late in the prehispanic past (Stanish 1992: 14;Stanish 2003: 69). As was discussed above, the evidence suggests that household level organization of long distance caravans should be considered as a possible hypothesis for the long distance circulation of goods prior to the Middle or Late Formative when archaeological evidence for ranked society appeared in the Titicaca Basin.

In terms of the two configurations described above as subsistence exchangeand the single-source diffusivegoods (Figure 3-4X), the capacity and incentive for long distance caravan activity appear to be much older than the evidence for elite administration. In other words, on a geographical level and in terms of archaeological distributions one should consider that long distance caravan exchange was possibly organized on the household level thousands of years before elites were clearly organizing labor for the construction of monuments and the hosting of feasts.

What were the contexts in which individuals and households to began to organize long distance caravans in prehistory? Many of the "diffusive" goods with radiating distributions were not required for subsistence, strictly speaking. While small quantities of salt are biologically necessary for humans, salt is available in low densities in many parts of the altiplano and hunters and pastoralists can actually acquire salt from the consumption of meat and blood. In terms of the need for obsidian, it is evident that obsidian has flaking characteristics not available in other stone materials, but high quality cherts are available in many regions where the archaeological evidence shows that obsidian was imported from relatively large distances. Semi-precious stones like lapis lazuli are found in archaeological contexts such as burials after 3300 BCE in the south-central Andes. A variety of perishable goods probably circulated along such exchange networks as well, and as wild plants and agricultural products from particular regions are renowned to this day, such as hot peppers, sweet corn, herbs, and potent coca leaf, there was likely to have been variability in products available from particular valleys over others (especially during the earlier stages of plant domestication). If these products were transferred by caravans, perhaps in dried form, they would have radiated along distributions that were closer to diffusive sources like obsidian.

At risk of creating a rigid dichotomy, these items that were relatively common-place in some regions may have been closer to "prestige goods" because they were transported substantial distances. Following agency models for early leadership, those who mobilized resources to acquire such goods may have been striving to differentiate themselves from their communities and their neighbors. However, it is important to note that many of these goods, such as obsidian, do not appear to have been used exclusively by a small, restricted segment of the population in the archaeological contexts where they are found. Nevertheless these goods were widely transported and the mere presence of these goods indicates that some effort was expended to acquire the product (and, according to Hayden (1998: 44), these are automatically a form of prestige technology). In terms of the importance of "ordinary goods" (Smith 1999, see section 2.2.2), such products may have had important cultural and ethnic associations that lent value to the acquisition of these goods and prestige to those who could acquire them while simultaneously having widespread availability in a community. Archaeologists often define "prestige goods" based on spatially-delimited contexts that imply restricted or elite contexts of consumption, and this sometimes leads to claims that these alleged prestige goods were the impetus for long distance exchange. Rather than inferring that prestige goods defined the exchange networks and then "everyday goods" followed suit, Smith (1999) notes that the cultural information and these non-local yet widely-consumed materials like obsidian are perhaps better considered as "cultural goods", linked to ethnicity signaling and practice among herders (Nielsen 2000: 521-526), and complemented by other markers of ethnicity the most visible of which were probably textiles. As regional links became established, obsidian may have become a means for demonstrating participation and cultural affiliation with the subsistence level networks that exchanged goods including obsidian. Even if archaeologists are not able to detect exclusivity in the access to such goods in intra-site spatial distributions, as the materials were widely consumed in the community, it seems probable that the ability to acquire these goods reflected positively on the individual or household capable of procuring non-local products.