A planned auction by Sotheby’s in Hong Kong of relics believed to be associated with the historical Buddha was abruptly postponed this week following a legal intervention by the Indian government. The collection, known as the Piprahwa relics, was discovered in 1898 during British colonial rule and includes jewel fragments found alongside bone and ash believed by many to be the remains of the Buddha.
The Indian ministry argued that the auction would involve “violations of cultural heritage laws,” adding that Sotheby’s would be considered to be “participating in continued colonial exploitation” if it went ahead with the sale. (The Guardian)
The artifacts were scheduled to be auctioned on 7 May by the descendants of William Claxton Peppé, the British estate manager who led the original excavation at Piprahwa, in present-day Uttar Pradesh, northern India. However, India’s Ministry of Culture issued a formal notice calling for the return of the relics, stating that they should be preserved and venerated rather than sold.
In response, Sotheby’s released a statement on 7 May confirming the postponement: “This will allow for discussions between the parties,” the auction house noted. (The New York Times) Sotheby’s has taken down the webpage for the auction. The auction house has not confirmed when or whether the auction will be rescheduled. Discussions between Sotheby’s, the Peppé family, and the Indian government are reportedly ongoing.
Sotheby’s website still hosts an article written by Chris Peppé, one of the custodians of the relics, where he writes: “From the time we received the Piprahwa gem relics, my cousins and I have sought to make them available for viewing by the public (ideally a Buddhist public) to see at no cost to the institution borrowing them.” (Sotheby’s)
The relics, some measuring only millimeters in length, are arranged in intricate designs of circles and lines. Their anticipated sale sparked debate over cultural ownership, religious significance, and post-colonial restitution.
“We’re in this movement that’s long overdue, to rethink the status of culturally significant artwork,” said Ashley Thompson, a professor of Southeast Asian art at the University of London. “Who do they belong to? What are they worth? Can they even be considered as commodities?” (The New York Times)
The Piprahwa relics are not held by a museum or government institution but remain in private hands. This distinction has further complicated repatriation efforts, which have gained momentum globally in recent years. Countries such as the Netherlands and institutions in the United States have returned artifacts to their places of origin, while the British Museum has faced increasing calls to return contested items from its collection, including objects with Buddhist provenance.
The burial chamber contained jewel fragments, gold sheets, and small reliquaries, as well as bone and ash. At the time, many scholars believed the remains were those of the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni.
While much of the material was handed over to the British authorities and later distributed to museums and Buddhist leaders, including the Indian Museum in Kolkata, Peppé was allowed to retain a portion of the collection. These items have remained in his family for more than a century.
Peppé told BBC News that the family had considered donating the artifacts to Buddhist institutions, but faced difficulties in doing so. According to Peppé, the auction seemed like the “fairest and most transparent way to transfer these relics to Buddhists.” (The New York Times)
However, India’s Culture Ministry issued a statement, shared publicly on social media, arguing that the Peppé family lacked the legal and moral authority to sell the relics. The ministry stated that the objects “should be offered back to the Indian government” to ensure their preservation and religious reverence.
Art historian and professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, Naman Ahuja, noted the distinction between government and individual accountability in post-colonial restitution. “Noting the ethics of the situation and public sentiment, the British state did the right thing and returned relics in 1952,” he said, referencing previously repatriated Buddhist items. “But individuals who occupied a colonial position were not held accountable.” (The New York Times)
India, home to approximately 8.5 million Buddhists—mainly from Ambedkarite and Himalayan traditions—has in recent decades strengthened efforts to protect and reclaim its Buddhist heritage. The Piprahwa site continues to hold deep religious and historical significance. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha’s relics were divided after his passing and distributed among key communities, including his Sakya clan.
See more
Sotheby’s Postpones Auction of Buddhist Relics That India Tried to Block (The New York Times)
Auction of gems linked to Buddha postponed after India legal threat (The Guardian)
Sotheby’s postpones Buddhist gems auction that India called ‘colonial exploitation’ (CBC)
The Piprahwa Gems: A Four Generation Story of Custodianship (Sotheby’s)
Related news reports from BDG
Buddha-Linked Relics Head to Auction, Sparking Ethical and Cultural Debate as India Demands Halt to Sale
India’s Narendra Modi Pledges Loan of Buddha Relics During Visit to Thailand
Monks in Korea Welcome the Return of Buddhist Relics after 85 Years in US Museum
Taiwanese Buddhist Association Donates Relics to China
Thailand Celebrates Makha Bucha with a Display of Buddhist Relics from India
“Emerging Perspectives on the Origins of Buddhism in Sri Lanka”
There is an emerging perspective among some Sri Lankans, that suggests the origins of Buddhism may be more closely linked to Sri Lanka than to India. Although this view diverges from the traditionally accepted consensus of Western scholarship ( as opposed to longstanding indigenous narratives not blurred by efforts and actions by Colonial rulers) , it highlights important questions regarding the modus operandi of colonialist at that time , ethics and practices of past and present archaeology.
During British colonial rule, control over Ceylon over 140 years (modern-day Sri Lanka) extended to the investigation, interpretation, and narration of the island’s rich historical and religious heritage. This process was often conducted with minimal Ceylonese indigenous input, reflecting colonial interests that sought to reframe local histories particularly valuable information obtained from the great chronicles of Sri Lanka the Mahavamsa . One of many arguments are that the British, whether neglectfully or purposefully, reoriented the narrative by emphasizing Buddhist sites in India—sites associated with the Buddha’s birth, enlightenment, first sermon, and final Nibbana —thus undermining traditional Sri Lankan Buddhist practices. This traditional framework, particularly as outlined in Chapter 95 of the Tripitaka regarding requisite to visit at least one of the four sacred Buddha sites on the island, central to indigenous religious identity.
The ramifications of this narrative shift are significant. For many Sri Lankans, undertaking a pilgrimage to these revered sites in India presents not only a cultural and spiritual challenge but also a substantial financial burden. Less affluent devotees often face severe economic strain to fulfill what has become a lifelong aspiration, resulting in a tragedy for a considerable segment of the community.
The narrative that connects the Buddha exclusively with sites in India was during the period of British colonial rule. At that time, India—then home to a vast population of approximately 200 million—did not have any recognized Buddhist historical tradition until colonial “archaeological efforts” brought these sites to light. These efforts, however, remain controversial; for instance, the work of Anton Fuhrer has been questioned due to allegations of archaeological fraud, and his superior, Georg Buhler, reportedly faced severe personal consequences as a result of these revelations.
I invite further scholarly discussion and investigation into these matters. A reassessment of available evidence, alongside greater integration of indigenous perspectives, may contribute to a more nuanced understanding of Buddhist history that better reflects the cultural and historical realities of Sri Lanka.
If all of the above turns to be true would it impact the value? I am guessing the value would be significantly less if not connected to Buddha
In any case the artefacts should be handed back to an India because it was taken from India during colonial times.