The circumstances of zooarchaeology, in which we study the remains of dead animals, indeed most often the remains of animals that have been eaten, tend to blind us to the value of living animals (Bogucki 1993:492). We see animals as only protein and calories, whereas in some cases their meat may have been their least important contribution to human society. In many ethnographically and historically known societies, domestic animals have functioned as wealth, and sometimes as the principal form of wealth. Pastoral societies are built around this animal wealth, and relationships are expressed in the medium of animals. Animal wealth often plays an important role in agricultural societies as well.

Animal wealth has played a large role in archaeological interpretation where ethnohistorical evidence attests to its importance, as in southern Africa. Elsewhere, it is only beginning to figure into archaeological models, which for the most part treat animals only as packages of meat. This approach reflects a larger tendency in archaeology to conflate “economy” with “subsistence” (Bogucki 1993:493). In this chapter I argue that the value of live animals as wealth must be considered anywhere there are domestic animals. Animal wealth may have been of crucial importance in the spread of agriculture and the emergence of inequality. Nowhere is it more critical to put flesh on the bones.