Early South Indian Palaeography c8.s2.2

c8.s2.2

We have so far, attempted a brief survey of the nascent attempts of primitive men to get over the difficulties of speech so that communication could be less perishable. But all these varied devices invented by them have been rightly grouped under ‘embryo-writing’ to be distinguished from true writing. Obviously, therefore, our main concern should be the study of the latter ; and to begin with, that is, pictography. In a way pictography is the boundary between writing and art, so that to view it in a wider perspective we should consider some of the theories put forward by historians of art. Many scholars tend to believe that the theory of sympathetic magic has largely explained the purpose of all primitive art. Yet, what was at the back of the minds of these artists would seem to defy mangling by preconceived theories. In her book *Paintings and Engravings*, (Tr. by Eleanore Frances Armstrong)³³, Mille Annate Laming-Las Caux “ has thought out along her own lines the reasons which may have prompted cave artists to acquire and develop their skill in order to be able to devote their time to decorating almost inaccessible areas of rock space. She joins issue, indeed, with Abbe Breuil, for she is not prepared to accept hunting, ritual and the practice of sympathetic magic as being sufficient explanations either of the choice or the number of the animals represented, or of the surfaces chosen for decoration, or of the seemingly casual superimposed drawings. Mille Laming draws attention to what she considers intelligibly obvious group compositions and argues that such groups are incompatible with the theory of sympathetic magic which depends on the supposition that each animal or figure was painted separately according to the needs of the hunt. More over, she rules out the alternative theory of these cave paintings being products of an anecdotal animal art on grounds of unnatural animal associations between certain animals within these groups .........'' ³⁴ It is therefore idle to conclude that these drawings and paintings represent one definite trend to the exclusion of all others or that all primitive art, irrespective of the factors of time and place, could be explained in terms of any single theory, however cogent it may seem to be. There is, indeed, no logical or historical necessity for any exclusive motive. Thus it is not improbable that primitive art has been permeated by many complementary factors. It may commemorate actual events or record instructions and directives to be carried out and essay as well dreamy visions of unfulfilled yearnings.