What was found
In 1851, Alexander Cunningham and Frederick Maisey, two British officers with an interest in antiquities, opened several stupas on and near the Sanchi hill. Inside two of them, Stupa 2 and Stupa 3 on Sanchi hill, and in a stupa at nearby Satdhara, they found small containers made of stone and other materials, with smaller vessels inside. Some contained fragments of bone, along with beads and other offerings. These are the relic caskets, or reliquaries, that give the site much of its devotional weight.
The excavation methods of the time were crude by modern standards, and the archaeological context was not recorded as carefully as it would be today. This is one reason why some details about the find are less certain than we would like.
The inscriptions
Several caskets bore short inscriptions in the early Brahmi script. In Stupa 3 and in Satdhara, inscriptions on the caskets name Sariputta and Mahamoggallana, who are traditionally regarded as the two foremost among the Buddha disciples. The inscriptions are useful evidence that the contents were identified, at the time of enshrinement, with these two disciples, but they do not by themselves prove whose remains they were. In Stupa 2, inscriptions on caskets name a number of teachers, who are traditionally associated with early missions to the Himalayan region. Here too the inscriptions record how the community of the time understood the relics, and that is how they are best read.
The journey to Britain
After the excavation, the main relics were taken to England. The caskets and relics were exhibited for many years in a London museum, and the pieces were part of the wider flow of antiquities out of India in the colonial period. Buddhist communities, especially in Sri Lanka, asked for their return. The Maha Bodhi Society, a Buddhist organisation founded in the late nineteenth century to revive Buddhist sites in India, was prominent in these appeals.
The return
The relics were returned in the mid-twentieth century. They were first sent to Sri Lanka, where they were shown to the public, and then taken to a number of other places in Asia before reaching India. In 1952 they were enshrined at Sanchi in a new vihara, Chetiyagiri Vihara, built on the hill for the purpose. The ceremony was a significant public occasion, attended by Buddhist leaders and Indian officials. Precise dates and itineraries are recorded in the histories of the Maha Bodhi Society, and readers wanting exact details should consult those sources.
Some relics are kept in the vihara in a secure setting, and part of the material is understood to have been enshrined in a separate chamber. The arrangements are determined by the managing organisation.
Devotional events today
The relics are brought out for public veneration on a scheduled occasion once a year, typically in late autumn, when a gathering is held at Sanchi. Monks and lay followers come from India and other countries. Chanting and offerings are part of the event. The relics have also travelled at various times to Buddhist countries for public veneration. Dates and arrangements change from year to year, and no schedule should be assumed. Anyone wishing to attend should check current announcements from the organisers.
Large gatherings call for care. Crowds can be dense, and some practical suggestions about crowd safety awareness are worth reading in advance. Dress modestly, follow the instructions of volunteers and officials, and expect queues.
Why relics matter in tradition
In Buddhist tradition, relics serve as a focus for recollection of the Buddha and his followers. Not all communities place the same emphasis on them, and views differ about their authenticity and purpose. Devotion to relics is especially prominent in some Theravada and Vajrayana communities, and in the broader cultures where merit and devotion are expressed through offerings. In the story of Sanchi, relics help explain why the stupas were built in the first place, and why donors gave so generously, as described in the article on the Great Stupa.
A note on certainty
Much of this account depends on nineteenth-century reports and on the records of later organisations. Where sources are uncertain, it is safer to say that the relics are “traditionally identified” with the two disciples, and to treat claims of precise authenticity with caution. For devotees, the meaning of the relics rests on faith and long practice, not on laboratory proof.