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).

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.