Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c32.18

c32.18

A different line of argument may now be followed, based on observation of surviving methods, where impermanent materials are employed. The absence of images from ancient sites, as Barāhat, is taken as proof of the non-existence of an early school of sculptors or imagers. This negative evidence is, however, insufficient to prove that images of impermanent materials or the precious metals were not made. Even at Anurādhapura we find no statues of Buddha associated with the great stūpas, the only figure sculpture being in low relief on stelæ as at Barāhat. But it does not certainly follow that wood, clay, or stone images were not worshipped in the neighbouring vihāras. Had wooden or clay images been worshipped in Aśoka's day, we should have no trace left to show it, yet the negative evidence would be misleading. And even if, as is probable, images of Buddha himself were unknown until several centuries after his death, this would not in itself be a proof of the non-existence of images of any sort.