When asking the question "why paint animals?" many of the old/rejected theories cited in this chapter provide glimpses of an answer. For example, the "sympathetic magic" theory argues that painting an animal was a way to control it and thus help hunting (Clottes & Lewis-Williams 25), and the "totem" theory argues a hierarchical structure between humans and animals (Cottes & Lewis-Williams 27). What is common-ground between both of these, as well as the new ideas presented in this chapter, is the idea of a relationship between animal and man. This relationship is one of survival--man needs food. When so much importance and necessity is placed on one thing it in turn becomes the principal focus of life. This gives great power to the idea of the animal, as it is the provider for the main element prehistoric people needed.
Turning the clocks ahead we see similar trends on the relationship between need and religion. As basic needs--food, water, shelter--become more of a given, the "needs" of mankind were able to change. Because daily activity is not now consumed by hunting and finding water, other, arguably less essential, aspects of life have become "needs". Such needs may include: hope, happiness (or the promise of happiness), motivation, and companionship. These needs are some of fundamental pillars of modern religion and are clearly the most marketed for recruitment.
What we can draw from this is the idea the we find meaning and significance in what is essential to our lives. Prehistoric man needed food and coincidentally (or not) he drew animals on the wall, modern man needs happiness and thus he goes to church where the components of happiness are promised.
