Office Of Siridantamahapalaka
The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum
Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa Archaeological Relic Deposit, Inscribed Reliquaries, and Epigraphic Attribution HIRR-2026-0026
Venerable Dhammasami
Ph.D(Thesis),M.A(Pali),Dip in Social Work,B.A
ORCID: 0009-0000-0697-4760
Copy Right By
Venerable Dhammasami
Office of Siridantamahāpalaka
The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum
Hswagata International Relic Registry
Integrated Relic Custodianship Model
Official Website: www.hswagata.com
Secondary Website: www.siridantamahapalaka.com
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTED RELIC DEPOSIT, ARCHIVAL CORRELATION, AND HERITAGE DOCUMENTATION RECORD
Institutional Research Certification under the HIRR–IRCM Framework
CERTIFICATE METADATA
Certificate Number: CERT-HIRR-2026-0026
Project Reference: HIRR-2026-0026
Case ID: CASE-2026-0026
Registry Number: REG-2026-0026
Publication Number: PUB-2026-0026
Site or Object Name: Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa
Historical Region: Lower Krishna Valley, Andhra Pradesh
Modern Country: India
Archaeological Period: Early Buddhist (Approx. 3rd-2nd century BCE)
Excavator or Documenting Authority: Alexander Rea, Archaeological Survey of India / Madras Presidency
Excavation or Documentation Date: 1892 (Excavated) / 1894 (Published)
Documented Relic Quantity in the Historical Record: Two reported bone fragments (derived from candidate metadata; exact primary page-level count pending)
Evidence Classification: CLASS A — DOCUMENTED EXCAVATION RECORD, CLASS B — EPIGRAPHICALLY ANCHORED RELIC RECORD
Confidence Classification: High (with disclosed limitations regarding precise fragment count)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22005819
Publication Version: v1.0
Date of Issue: 19 August 2026
CENTRAL EVIDENCE IMAGE PANEL
[IMAGE 1 PLACEHOLDER] |
Subject: Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa Mound and Central Core |
Source: Rea 1894, Pl. III |
Type: Documentary Visual Evidence |
Status: Public Domain
[IMAGE 2 PLACEHOLDER] |
Subject: Inscribed Stone Relic Casket |
Source: Rea 1894 / Government Museum Chennai |
Type: Documentary Visual Evidence |
Status: Public Domain
[IMAGE 3 PLACEHOLDER] |
Subject: Early Southern Brahmi Inscription (I-IX) invoking Buddha-sarira |
Source: Bühler 1894, Epigraphia Indica 2 |
Type: Documentary Visual Evidence |
Status: Public Domain
DECLARATION OF FINDINGS
This certificate records that the archaeological and archival documentation associated with the Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa has undergone systematic archaeological, epigraphic, and museum-documentary reviews under the Integrated Relic Custodianship Model.
The examined records document the reported recovery of two distinct bone fragments (derived from candidate metadata, pending exact page-level reconciliation) from the Central Core Relic Vault, as recorded by the Archaeological Survey of India under Alexander Rea in 1892. Furthermore, the deposit is epigraphically designated as containing Buddha-sarira according to the contemporaneous early Southern Brahmi inscriptions on the relic caskets published by Georg Bühler in 1894.
The available evidence supports CLASS A and CLASS B certification regarding the documented relic deposit and its historical context with High confidence, noting that the complete modern chain of custody and exact biological identity remain outside the scope of this certification.
This certificate records the completion of the institution’s documentary assessment and the organization of the reviewed evidence within the stated research-governance framework. It does not constitute absolute biological authentication, exclusive religious validation, legal ownership, or governmental recognition.
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT PANEL
AUTHORIZATION AND SIGNATURE BLOCK
(Official Embossed Institutional Seal)
DRAFT — VALID FOR PUBLIC ISSUE
Certificate Number: CERT-HIRR-2026-0026
Issued By:
Sao Dhammasami
(Bhikkhu Indasoma Siridantamahāpalaka)
RESEARCHER
Founder and Custodian of the Relics
Office of Siridantamahāpalaka
The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum
Reviewed for institutional consistency and publication governance by Venerable Indaka, Co-Founder of the Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum.
DIGITAL VERIFICATION
[QR CODE 1 PLACEHOLDER]
Scan to access the full research monograph and verification record.
DOI STATUS: 10.5281/zenodo.22005819
Office of Siridantamahāpalaka | The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum (Yangon / Bangkok Operations)
www.hswagata.com | www.siridantamahapalaka.com
DOI STATUS: 10.5281/zenodo.22005819 | CERT-HIRR-2026-0026 | Version: v1.0
See reverse side for Certificate Governance Charter, Terms, Conditions, and Research Ethics.
CERTIFICATE GOVERNANCE CHARTER
Terms, Conditions, Research Ethics, and Use Restrictions
ARTICLE 1 — ACADEMIC INTERPRETATION
The certificate records documentary, archaeological, historical, epigraphic, numismatic, archival, or custodial findings. It does not automatically establish biological identity.
ARTICLE 2 — CERTIFICATION SCOPE
This certificate precisely validates the documented excavation record of the Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa by Alexander Rea (1892), the epigraphic designation of the deposit as Buddha-sarira published by Georg Bühler (1894), the historically reported quantity of two distinct bone fragments (subject to pending source-level reconciliation), and early custodial museum association. It explicitly acknowledges an interrupted continuity in the modern chain of custody and does not certify unbroken modern provenance.
ARTICLE 3 — INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY
The certificate does not invalidate, diminish, compete with, or rank other Buddhist relic traditions. It must remain non-sectarian and non-nationalistic.
ARTICLE 4 — NO OWNERSHIP OR EXCLUSIVE CUSTODIANSHIP
The certificate does not confer ownership, proprietary rights, exclusive religious authority, legal title, right of sale, or right of transfer.
ARTICLE 5 — PROTECTION AGAINST MISUSE
The certificate must not be used for commercial valuation, relic trading, illicit transfer, political propaganda, sectarian superiority, nationalist claims, deceptive fundraising, or false scientific claims.
ARTICLE 6 — RESEARCH ETHICS
The research must respect sacred heritage, cultural sensitivity, Theravāda monastic discipline where applicable, non-destructive research principles, documentary transparency, and citation integrity.
ARTICLE 7 — EVIDENCE–INTERPRETATION–HYPOTHESIS SEPARATION
Every certification package must distinguish:
Evidence: Directly documented material.
Interpretation: Scholarly explanation supported by evidence.
Hypothesis: A possibility not yet proven.
Doctrine: A religious or commentarial position.
These categories must never be merged.
ARTICLE 8 — DOCTRINAL HUMILITY
Doctrinal statements, devotional traditions, Dhātu-pāṭihāriya accounts, Adhiṭṭhāna interpretations, or guardian-deity traditions may be recorded respectfully as religious heritage. They must not be represented as modern archaeological or biological proof.
ARTICLE 9 — ARCHIVAL INTEGRITY
Historical gaps must be disclosed. Missing records must not be replaced by invented narratives.
ARTICLE 10 — RIGHT TO AMEND
The issuing institution may amend, update, suspend, replace, or revoke a certificate where new evidence materially affects the original assessment. Every amendment must receive a revision number, a new issue date, a correction record, and a preserved previous version.
ARTICLE 11 — CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION
A certificate is valid only when its serial number, DOI, QR destination, registry record, and publication version correspond.
ARTICLE 12 — COPYRIGHT AND REPRODUCTION
The certificate may not be altered, edited, cropped misleadingly, or commercially reproduced without authorization. Academic citation and non-commercial scholarly reference may be permitted with full attribution.
ARTICLE 13 — DATA PROTECTION
Sensitive custodial locations, security information, storage arrangements, and private contact data must not be published unless authorized.
ARTICLE 14 — PUBLICATION RESPONSIBILITY
The principal researcher remains responsible for the scholarly content. Institutional review confirms documentary and governance consistency only, unless a reviewer has explicitly endorsed a specific conclusion.
ARTICLE 15 — RELIGIOUS HUMILITY STATEMENT
The spiritual significance of relics transcends material analysis and remains connected to faith, devotion, doctrine, and Buddhist community practice. The certificate must be presented with humility and respect.
HIRR-2026-0026
Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa
Archaeological Relic Deposit, Inscribed Reliquaries, and Epigraphic Attribution
Research integrity notice: This record distinguishes excavated context, material description, inscriptional attribution, historical interpretation, and modern custody. Claims are not strengthened beyond the sources cited.
Abstract
Bhattiprolu, in the lower Krishna valley of present-day Andhra Pradesh, is one of the most important early Buddhist reliquary sites in southern India because its stupa yielded inscribed stone relic caskets during Alexander Rea’s 1892 excavations. Rea’s 1894 publication documents the excavation of the monument and the recovery of reliquary deposits, while Georg Bühler’s contemporaneous epigraphic study published ten inscriptions associated with the discovery, nine on three relic caskets and a tenth on a crystal object. The inscriptions are especially important because they explicitly connect the enshrinement activity with Buddha-sarira, while also preserving institutional and donor language and a royal name rendered in modern scholarship as Kubira/Kuberaka. This monograph reconstructs the archaeological context, reliquary evidence, epigraphic language, chronology, museum history, and evidential limits of the candidate record. It concludes that Bhattiprolu securely qualifies as a Tier A archaeologically recovered Buddhist relic deposit, while the exact biological identity, fragment count, and complete modern chain of custody require claim-specific documentation beyond the archaeological and epigraphic evidence.
Keywords: Bhattiprolu; Buddhist relics; stupa; reliquary; Brahmi; Buddha-sarira; Alexander Rea; Georg Bühler; Kuberaka; Lower Krishna Valley.
Executive Evidence Summary
Table of Contents
1. Research Framework and Candidate Identification
2. Site, Monument and Excavation History
3. Relic Assemblage and Material Evidence
4. Epigraphic Evidence and Buddha-sarira Attribution
5. Chronology and Historical Interpretation
6. Museum, Provenance and Custody
7. Evidence Assessment and HIRR Classification
8. Discussion and Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Appendices
List of Figures
Figure 1. Lower Krishna Valley context (schematic)
Figure 2. Analytical stupa-core schematic
Figure 3. Reliquary evidence chain
Figure 4. Chronology of evidence and documentation
Figure 5. Published inscription carriers in Bühler’s corpus
List of Tables
Table 1. Candidate identification
Table 2. Source inventory
Table 3. Excavation evidence
Table 4. Reliquary assemblage reconstruction
Table 5. Terminology comparison
Table 6. Chronology evidence
Table 7. Museum and custody evidence
Table 8. Claim-evidence matrix
Table 9. Contradictions and verification gaps
Table 10. Evidence-tier assessment
1. Research Framework and Candidate Identification
1.1 Background and rationale
Bhattiprolu matters to relic research because excavation, reliquary architecture, and inscriptions converge within a single archaeological case. Alexander Rea’s 1894 monograph states that the volume presents the results of excavations at Bhattiprolu, Gudivada, and Ghantasala conducted at the beginning of 1892.
The near-contemporary epigraphic study by Georg Bühler is equally important. Bühler published ten inscriptions discovered by Rea in the Bhattiprolu stupa: inscriptions I-IX were incised on three relic caskets, while inscription X was scratched on a small hexagonal piece of crystal.
The evidential importance of Bhattiprolu therefore rests not on a later devotional tradition alone but on the archaeological association of a stupa, relic receptacles, inscriptions, and material interpreted as relics. At the same time, the evidence must be decomposed. An inscriptional attribution to Buddha-sarira is historically strong evidence for how the deposit was understood at the time of enshrinement; it is not identical to modern biological identification of an individual fragment.
1.2 Candidate identification
1.3 Research questions
• What does Rea’s excavation publication establish about the monument and reliquary context?
• What exactly do the Bhattiprolu inscriptions say about relic enshrinement and Buddha-sarira?
• How many reliquary caskets, inscriptions, and material deposits can be distinguished without collapsing different counts?
• What chronological range is supported by archaeology, palaeography, and present museum dating?
• What does the Kuberaka/Kubira reference establish, and what remains interpretive?
• What can be documented about later museum custody and object identification?
• Which candidate assertions require additional object-level or scientific verification?
1.4 Method and evidence rules
The method is claim-specific and source-hierarchical. Rea is treated as the principal excavation witness; Bühler as the near-contemporary epigraphic witness; the Government Museum Chennai record as an official modern museum witness for at least one inscribed stone reliquary lid; and later scholarship as interpretive context. Repetition across derivative sources is not counted as independent confirmation.
Figure 1. Lower Krishna Valley context (schematic, not to scale). Author reconstruction for HIRR-2026-0026; geographic framing follows the candidate record and the lower-Krishna archaeological context.
2. Site, Monument and Excavation History
2.1 Site and regional setting
Bhattiprolu lies in the lower Krishna valley of coastal Andhra Pradesh, a region central to the development of Buddhist monumental and monastic landscapes. For this record, the regional label functions as historical-geographic context rather than as a shortcut for dating the stupa. The monument must be dated from evidence tied to Bhattiprolu itself.
2.2 Earlier disturbance and the 1892 excavation
Rea’s account preserves evidence that the mound had been disturbed before his work. He quotes earlier reports describing a stone casket, an earthen vessel, a soapstone casket, and a crystal phial, with some objects damaged or dispersed. This earlier disturbance is methodologically important because it means that the 1892 recovery history sits within a longer sequence of intervention.
Rea’s own work focused on the structural remains of the stupa and its central core. His published plates include construction details and the central excavated well. The archaeological interpretation must therefore distinguish material recovered by Rea from objects reported as found during earlier demolition or digging.
Figure 2. Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa: analytical core schematic. Author reconstruction based on Rea’s published description and construction plates; not a measured archaeological plan.
2.3 Excavation evidence table
3. Relic Assemblage and Material Evidence
3.1 Deposit reconstruction
The Bhattiprolu assemblage must be reconstructed by container, inscription carrier, and content rather than by a single undifferentiated count. Bühler’s corpus gives a secure minimum of three inscribed relic caskets for inscriptions I-IX, plus a separately inscribed crystal object for inscription X. Rea’s excavation narrative and plates provide the archaeological setting within which those objects were recovered.
3.2 Why the counts must remain separate
“Three relic caskets,” “ten inscriptions,” “two bone fragments,” and “one crystal object” are counts of different categories. They cannot be combined or substituted for one another. The HIRR record therefore preserves the candidate’s two-fragment statement but does not use it as the controlling count until a specific primary-source passage or museum inventory is tied to each fragment.
3.3 Material identification and scientific limits
Archaeological description can establish that material was treated as bodily relic matter in an inscribed reliquary context. It does not, by itself, establish species, anatomical element, age, date of cremation, or individual identity through modern scientific method. No laboratory report has been established in the inspected source set used for this production. The correct formulation is therefore archaeological and epigraphic rather than genetic or forensic.
Figure 3. Reliquary evidence chain. Author reconstruction showing the logical sequence from excavation context to inscriptional attribution; the final attribution level is historical/epigraphic, not modern biological identification.
4. Epigraphic Evidence and Buddha-sarira Attribution
4.1 Bühler’s publication
Bühler describes the first nine inscriptions as being incised on three relic caskets and notes that their characters mostly resemble Aśokan forms while also displaying unusual features. This is one reason the Bhattiprolu inscriptions occupy an important place in the history of early southern Brahmi writing.
The corpus is not merely palaeographic. Its wording records donors, corporate or communal actors, reliquary actions, and explicit Buddha-sarira terminology. Modern transliterations vary in orthography, and the candidate phrase “Buddhassa sarīrāni” should therefore be treated as a normalized interpretive expression rather than assumed to be the exact diplomatic text of every relevant line.
4.2 Terminology comparison
4.3 Kuberaka / Kubira
The royal name commonly rendered Kuberaka, Khubiraka, or Kubira appears in discussions of the Bhattiprolu inscriptions. The presence of a royal name is strong evidence for a named political actor in the epigraphic horizon, but it does not automatically identify a large dynastic state or fix an absolute date. The outstanding verification item is therefore properly framed as a historical alignment problem: how should the king named in the inscriptional corpus be situated relative to contemporaneous political formations in the lower Krishna region?
Later scholarship on corporate bodies in early South Asian Buddhism has re-examined the Bhattiprolu inscriptions and notes the varying spellings Kubira/Khubiraka, emphasizing the complex institutional organization behind relic enshrinement.
Figure 5. Published inscription carriers in Bühler’s Bhattiprolu corpus. Counts are directly based on Bühler’s statement: inscriptions I-IX on three relic caskets; inscription X on a crystal object.
5. Chronology and Historical Interpretation
5.1 Dating the inscriptions and reliquary phase
A precise single-year date should not be imposed. The Government Museum Chennai currently describes its Bhattiprolu inscribed stone reliquary lid as “About 3rd-2nd century BC.”
Bühler’s palaeographic analysis stresses both correspondences with Aśokan Brahmi and distinctive local forms. Later scholarship has proposed dates ranging within the early centuries BCE. The HIRR record therefore uses an early-Buddhist, broadly 3rd-2nd century BCE horizon unless a more exact claim is tied to a specific palaeographic or stratigraphic argument.
Figure 4. Chronology of evidence and documentation. The ancient date is shown as a range rather than a single year; 1892 and 1894 mark excavation and publication milestones.
6. Museum, Provenance and Custody
6.1 Government Museum Chennai
The Government Museum Chennai maintains an official gallery entry for an “Inscribed lid of stone reliquary” from Bhattiprolu, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. It states that Alexander Rea discovered inscriptions on stone caskets and dates the object to about the 3rd-2nd century BCE.
This official record is strong evidence for the presence of at least one Bhattiprolu inscribed reliquary element in the Chennai museum context. It does not by itself establish the current location of every casket, crystal object, bead, or relic particle recovered at the site.
6.2 Chennai / Kolkata allocation
The candidate record names both the Government Museum, Chennai and the Indian Museum, Kolkata. For publication-quality custody history, each object must be tied to a current catalogue or accession number. In the absence of such item-level records in the inspected source set, the dual-repository statement is retained as candidate metadata but is not converted into a complete allocation table of specific relic contents.
7. Evidence Assessment and HIRR Classification
7.1 Claim-evidence matrix
7.2 Contradictions and verification gaps
7.3 Evidence tier justification
8. Discussion and Conclusion
8.1 What is established
Bhattiprolu is a high-value archaeological relic case because a documented stupa excavation produced inscribed reliquary material and because the epigraphic corpus directly refers to Buddha-sarira. The convergence of architectural, object, and inscriptional evidence is substantially stronger than a later unproven relic attribution detached from excavation context.
Three points are especially secure. First, Rea’s 1892 investigation belongs to a documented archaeological campaign published in 1894. Second, Bühler’s contemporaneous epigraphic study establishes that nine inscriptions were carried on three relic caskets and that a tenth inscription occurred on a crystal object. Third, the corpus preserves language associating the relic enshrinement with the Buddha, making the attribution ancient/epigraphic rather than merely modern.
8.2 What remains bounded
The evidence does not justify collapsing epigraphic attribution into modern biological identification. Nor does it justify fixing every object to a single precise date, assuming that the candidate’s two-fragment count is the only relevant count, or treating the named king as automatically belonging to a fully reconstructed dynastic framework. Museum custody likewise requires accession-level reconstruction.
8.3 Final HIRR assessment
HIRR-2026-0026 is accepted as a NEW, TIER A archaeologically recovered relic-deposit record. The strongest publishable formulation is: “The Bhattiprolu Maha Stupa yielded inscribed relic caskets in a documented 1892 excavation; near-contemporary epigraphic publication associates the enshrinement with Buddha-sarira, while the precise biological identity, exact relic-fragment count, and complete modern custody history remain separate verification questions.”
8.4 Recommended further research
• Locate a clean page-level scan of Rea pp. 11-17 and Plates III-VI and reconcile each container and content description against the candidate’s two-fragment statement.
• Create a diplomatic transcription table for all ten Bühler inscriptions, retaining edition-specific orthography and translation.
• Identify accession and catalogue numbers for Bhattiprolu reliquary objects in Government Museum Chennai and Indian Museum Kolkata.
• Review later palaeographic scholarship to define the most defensible date range for each inscription rather than the site as a whole.
• Investigate Kuberaka/Kubira through early Deccan political and epigraphic corpora without presupposing a Satavahana identification.
• Locate conservation, scientific, or material-analysis reports, if any, for the relic contents and distinguish absence of located evidence from proof that testing never occurred.
Notes and Source Apparatus
True footnotes are embedded at the relevant pages. This section records source families and cautions against treating derivative repetition as independent corroboration.
Bibliography
Primary and Near-Primary Sources
Bühler, Georg. “The Bhattiprolu Inscriptions.” Epigraphia Indica 2 (1894): 323-329.
Rea, Alexander. South-Indian Buddhist Antiquities: Including the Stupas of Bhattiprolu, Gudivada, and Ghantasala and Other Ancient Sites in the Krishna District, Madras Presidency. Madras: Superintendent, Government Press, 1894.
Government Museum, Chennai. “Inscribed Lid of Stone Reliquary: Bhattiprolu, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.” Archaeology / Inscriptions gallery record.
Secondary and Comparative Scholarship
“Corporate Bodies in Early South Asian Buddhism: Some Relics and Their Sponsors According to Epigraphy.” Religions 10, no. 1 (2019).
Fleet, J. F. “The Bhattiprolu Inscription No. 1, A.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 40, no. 1.
Salomon, Richard. Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Digital Access Points
Internet Archive. Digitized scan of Rea, South-Indian Buddhist Antiquities (1894), item in.ernet.dli.2015.34587 / related DLI scans.
Google Books. Epigraphia Indica and Record of the Archaeological Survey of India, Volume 2 (1894), contents listing “The Battiprolu Buddhist inscriptions” at p. 323.
Appendix A - HIRR Candidate Record
The twenty-field candidate record is reproduced in Section 1.2 as the controlled metadata baseline. Where source-level reconciliation modifies wording, the original candidate claim is retained and the analytical status is recorded separately rather than silently overwritten.
Appendix B - Source Register
Appendix C - Outstanding Verification Log
GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL APPENDIX
Reusable Master Text for HSWAGATA–HIRR Research Publications
The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum
Office of Siridantamahāpālaka
Hswagata International Relic Registry (HIRR)
Integrated Relic Custodianship Model (IRCM)
General institutional material for placement at the end of HSWAGATA–HIRR monographs, case studies, research papers, reports, and related scholarly publications.
MOTTO
If you accept guardianship of a sacred object, you accept a duty of truthful record-keeping about its fate.
“Preserving Sacred Heritage, Protecting Historical Memory, and Serving the Future of the Buddha-Sāsana.”
The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum is dedicated to the responsible preservation, documentation, study, and protection of tradition-associated Buddhist relics and related cultural heritage. Through transparency, ethical custodianship, and scholarly responsibility, the institution seeks to build a bridge between archaeology, history, museum practice, and Buddhist devotional traditions.
About Us
The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum and the Office of Siridantamahāpālaka form an independent institutional framework committed to the research, curation, documentation, and safeguarding of Buddha Tooth Relics, tradition-associated Buddhist relics, and related cultural heritage. The institution integrates archival science, systematic registry practice, historical research, archaeology, museum documentation, and responsible preservation.
Its guiding philosophy is to approach Buddhist heritage with respect for living religious traditions while also applying careful historical inquiry, source criticism, documentation standards, and evidence-based research. Faith, tradition, archaeology, museum records, scientific evidence, and legal status are treated as related but distinct domains.
Funding and Institutional Independence
As an independent private museum and non-profit institutional initiative, conservation, research, documentation, publication, and daily operations are sustained through private self-funding and philanthropic support. The institution does not present this financial independence as governmental, university, intergovernmental, or external accreditation.
Leadership and Custodianship
Founder & Custodian
Bhikkhu S. Dhammasami Indasoma Siridantamahāpālaka (Sao Dhammasami) serves as Founder and Custodian of The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum and directs the institution’s work in heritage stewardship, research, documentation, and publication. He is a Buddhist monk and author and holds an M.A. (Pali) and a Ph.D. (Thesis) in Peace Studies from the International Buddhist Studies College, Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, as stated in the institution-supplied profile. His work includes Buddhist archaeology and the historical tracking of tooth-relic traditions through stūpa research, travel accounts, archival materials, and museum records.
Co-Founder
Venerable Indaka serves as Co-Founder and Institutional Governance Reviewer, supporting governance oversight, structural-consistency review, policy alignment, and publication-governance review.
Director of International Relations and Public Engagement
Dr. Sudassana supports international institutional relations, public engagement, external communications, partnership liaison, research dissemination, and international correspondence. Email: drsudassana.hirr@gmail.com
Research and Academic Publications Coordinator
Dr. Surocana supports academic documentation, research coordination, publication preparation, reference and citation management, editorial development, and the organization of supplementary research materials.
Institutional Status and Governance
The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum operates as an independent private religious-heritage and research institution dedicated to preservation, documentation, academic study, archival management, and ethical stewardship. It is not represented by this appendix as a governmental body, court, university department, UNESCO body, intergovernmental organization, or independent external authentication laboratory.
The institution functions in association with the Office of Siridantamahāpālaka, the Hswagata International Relic Registry (HIRR), and the Integrated Relic Custodianship Model (IRCM). These entities and frameworks have different functions: a registry record is not a museum accession, a research publication is not a title deed, and a custodianship framework is not a legal adjudication.
The institutional structure may be understood through four connected operational areas:
Custodianship — preservation, protection, registry management, condition documentation, and conservation planning.
Research — archaeological assessment, historical investigation, textual and epigraphic review, evidence analysis, and publication.
Archives — digital preservation, source documentation, evidence management, metadata, and registry governance.
Public Education and Relations — dissemination, exhibitions, public communication, international correspondence, partnerships, and educational outreach.
Statement on the Purpose, Neutrality, and Use of Research Findings
Research papers, records, analyses, assessments, and findings issued within the HSWAGATA–HIRR framework are undertaken for academic, documentary, archival, museum, and cultural-heritage research purposes. They may examine historical, archaeological, literary, epigraphic, museum, custodial, and tradition-associated evidence relating to Buddhist relics and associated materials.
Such research does not determine or establish the ownership, sovereignty, legal title, inheritance rights, or other legally enforceable rights of any country, government, religious institution, museum, private institution, family, individual, or other entity. Present-day territorial location, historical sovereignty, ownership at the time of discovery, possession, institutional custody, subsequent transfer, and present physical location are treated as separate matters.
A research publication, registry entry, assessment, or institutional certificate must not be construed as a judicial finding, governmental determination, ownership document, title document, export permit, commercial authentication, or other legally binding instrument unless a competent authority has separately issued such a determination.
Downstream users who cite, reproduce, summarize, translate, interpret, or incorporate HSWAGATA–HIRR research into another work remain responsible for verifying the primary sources, official records, applicable laws, court records, governmental documents, and competent institutional decisions relevant to their own use. A later user’s legal or administrative argument does not automatically become the position of the original researcher or institution.
The role of the researcher is to collect and evaluate evidence, identify sources, examine historical and archaeological information, preserve uncertainty, and present reasoned scholarly assessments. Appropriate terms may include “historical evidence,” “archaeological evidence,” “documentary evidence,” “tradition-associated evidence,” “contextual correspondence,” and “probabilistic historical assessment.”
Research may investigate history. Research may evaluate evidence. Research may present scholarly conclusions. Legal ownership, title, sovereignty, and enforceable legal rights remain matters for the competent legal or governmental authorities under applicable law.
Our Mission
Our mission is to build a responsible bridge of understanding between archaeological and historical evidence, museum documentation, archival research, and Theravāda textual and devotional traditions. The institution does not seek to erase religious belief or to make faith function as scientific proof. It seeks instead to document each evidence domain honestly and to explain where they converge, differ, or remain unresolved.
Preserve tradition-associated relics and related heritage materials.
Document historical custodianship traditions and archival records.
Support responsible archaeological, historical, textual, and museum research.
Promote ethical heritage stewardship and precautionary conservation.
Preserve endangered documentary records through responsible digitization.
Encourage cooperation among museums, universities, monasteries, researchers, and cultural institutions.
Protect the continuity of Buddhist devotional heritage while keeping devotional claims distinct from empirical findings.
Create accessible scholarly publications and durable institutional records for future generations.
What We Do
Relic Documentation
Systematic registration and documentation of tradition-associated relics, reliquaries, deposits, and related records through controlled institutional registry systems.
Archaeological Assessment
Review and analysis of excavation reports, field records, stratigraphy, monument descriptions, reliquaries, inscriptions, associated finds, plans, plates, and other archaeological evidence.
Historical and Textual Research
Investigation of historical records, Pāli and other relevant textual traditions, travel accounts, chronicles, archival sources, and the history of relic transmission and veneration.
Museum and Custody Research
Review of repository records, accession and inventory evidence, conservation records, documented custody events, provenance gaps, and present-status evidence where available.
Digital Preservation
Creation and maintenance of durable digital records intended to reduce the risk of documentary loss and to support long-term research continuity.
Research and Publication
Production of case studies, monographs, reports, evidence registers, educational materials, and other institutional publications.
Public Education
Communication of Buddhist cultural heritage, preservation ethics, and research findings in forms accessible to scholarly and public audiences.
International Collaboration
Professional cooperation with researchers, museums, universities, monastic institutions, archives, and heritage professionals where appropriate.
Five-Year Strategic Collection Plan
The institutional strategic plan is organized around three broad phases. Specific targets, dates, and implementation status should be reported separately and updated through current institutional records rather than assumed from this general appendix.
Phase 1 — Digital Archiving and Standardization
Strengthen registry and accession-related documentation systems, expand digital preservation of archival records, and develop consistent non-invasive condition-reporting and metadata practices for core heritage materials.
Phase 2 — Advanced Interdisciplinary Research
Expand the comparative study of Theravāda textual traditions, archaeology, museum records, and historical documentation, and continue the preparation of institutional research publications and the “Chronicles” series where authorized.
Phase 3 — Global Open-Research Integration
Strengthen IRCM governance, improve long-term digital accessibility, pursue appropriate persistent identifiers and open-access routes where formally registered, and develop responsible collaboration with research and heritage institutions.
Research and Publication Framework
Research activities are organized through the Hswagata International Relic Registry (HIRR). Publication form depends on the evidence, purpose, and authorized project scope; a shorter document is not automatically weaker, and a longer document is not automatically stronger.
Tier 1 — Public Summary
A concise public-facing explanation of an approved research record or heritage subject.
Tier 2 — Case Study Report
Focused documentation and analysis of a defined site, object, relic assemblage, source problem, or historical question.
Tier 3 — Academic Monograph
A comprehensive evidence-led scholarly study with full source criticism, notes, bibliography, appendices, and research registers as appropriate.
Tier 4 — Museum / Institutional Archive Record
A durable registry and archival record designed for long-term institutional preservation and traceability.
Across publication types, the institution distinguishes documented evidence from interpretation, hypothesis, devotional tradition, scientific result, legal status, provenance, custody, ownership, and present verification.
Integrated Relic Custodianship Model (IRCM)
The Integrated Relic Custodianship Model (IRCM) is the institution’s framework for coordinating research, documentation, preservation, governance, and respectful care. It was developed in response to recurring problems in relic research, including fragmented documentation, uncertain provenance, interrupted custody histories, inconsistent archival practice, conflicting interpretations, and the need for clearer preservation standards.
Rather than treating ownership or authenticity as the only questions, the model gives priority to evidence, documentation, preservation, transparency, accountability, continuity, and respect for sacred heritage.
Historical Dimension
Evaluation of historical records, chronicles, manuscripts, archival sources, travel accounts, and custodial traditions.
Archaeological Dimension
Assessment of excavation reports, stratigraphy, monument history, reliquaries, inscriptions, numismatics, material culture, and documented scientific evidence.
Archival Dimension
Documentation of source history, provenance, registry management, digital preservation, metadata standards, and institutional memory.
Doctrinal and Devotional Dimension
Respectful documentation of Buddhist textual traditions, devotional practices, sacred-object beliefs, and custodianship traditions without presenting them as archaeological or scientific proof.
Our 15 Principles
1. Heritage Safeguarding: Secure safeguarding and responsible long-term care of sacred relics and historical heritage for future generations.
2. Precautionary Conservation: Preference for non-invasive and reversible approaches, with irreversible intervention requiring appropriate evidence, authority, and conservation justification.
3. Rigorous Documentation: Careful registry files, condition records, source documentation, identifiers, and audit trails appropriate to the object or project.
4. Interdisciplinary Research: Responsible integration of archaeology, history, textual studies, museum practice, archival research, and other relevant disciplines.
5. Technological Integration: Use of appropriate digital and computational research tools to improve documentation, analysis, preservation, and institutional efficiency without allowing tools to replace scholarly responsibility.
6. Open Research Commitment: Support for transparent methods, inspectable sources, reproducible documentation, and responsible access where rights, privacy, security, and sacred-material obligations permit.
7. Strategic Planning: Long-term planning for institutional development, collections care, documentation, and research continuity.
8. Scholarly Dissemination: Publication of research and heritage documentation in forms appropriate to the evidence and intended audience.
9. Academic Independence: Independent research judgment within the institution’s actual legal and organizational status, without implying governmental or external academic authority.
10. Transparency and Accountability: Clear documentation of methods, limitations, decisions, funding context, corrections, and institutional responsibility.
11. Ethical Integrity: Zero tolerance for bribery, corruption, and influence-seeking benefits that compromise professional judgment.
12. Impartiality: Evidence-led research that seeks to avoid political, racial, religious, commercial, or personal bias while respecting living traditions.
13. Peaceful Management: Culturally respectful and non-confrontational heritage stewardship that does not use research publication to manufacture ownership or political claims.
14. Global Collaboration: Professional cooperation with qualified researchers, reviewers, museums, archives, universities, monastic institutions, and heritage bodies where appropriate.
15. Educational Inspiration: Translation of complex historical and preservation questions into accessible knowledge without sacrificing evidence discipline.
Core Institutional Policies
Transparency and Accountability
Operations, research, and heritage decisions should be documented transparently to the extent permitted by privacy, rights, security, sacred-material, and legal obligations.
Impartiality and Conflict-of-Interest Control
Research and publication should avoid political, racial, religious, commercial, and personal conflicts of interest; material conflicts should be disclosed and managed.
Zero Tolerance for Bribery and Corruption
Direct or indirect bribery, corruption, and influence-seeking benefits are prohibited.
No Gift Policy
Officials, curators, researchers, and reviewers should not accept gifts, hospitality, favours, or privileges that could reasonably compromise professional judgment.
Peaceful Management and Safeguarding
Collections and sacred heritage should be managed with respect, security, documentation, and a preference for dispute-sensitive, peaceful processes.
Evidence–Interpretation–Hypothesis Separation
Publications must distinguish documented evidence from interpretation and hypothesis.
Custody and Provenance Documentation
Known custodial and provenance events should be recorded; missing links should be identified as gaps rather than silently reconstructed.
Confidence and Limitation Disclosure
Major conclusions should communicate the strength and limits of the evidence using the project’s approved evidence framework.
Research-Gap Disclosure
Missing evidence, inaccessible sources, contradictory records, and unresolved questions must remain visible.
Digital Preservation
Completed research and supporting records should be preserved through controlled digital backup and versioning.
Visual Evidence
Reconstructions and analytical diagrams must be identified as such; evidentiary images must have a documented source and rights basis.
Religious Heritage
Devotional traditions are documented respectfully as religious heritage and are not automatically endorsed or rejected by archaeological methodology.
Scientific Integrity
Scientific claims must be tied to real methods, reports, samples, and competent interpretation. Pseudo-scientific explanations must not be used as evidence.
Doctrinal Integrity
Doctrinal claims should be represented as doctrinal or traditional statements and should not be recast as archaeological observations or laboratory results.
Institutional Neutrality
Research should not be used to promote sectarian superiority, political propaganda, commercial exploitation, or cultural hostility.
Permanent Registry and Version Control
Registry, case, publication, evidence, and version records should remain traceable throughout the archival lifecycle.
Institutional Research Framework
The following framework describes methods that may be used across HSWAGATA–HIRR research. It does not imply that every method was used in every publication. Each project must state its actual methods, sources, inspection limits, and evidence base in its own methodology section.
Source and Evidence Collection
Identification and retrieval of archaeological reports, archival records, museum documentation, inscriptions, photographs, maps, textual witnesses, and relevant scholarship.
Source Inspection and Verification
Inspection of the exact source, page, plate, record, object entry, or other locator needed for a claim, with access limitations stated accurately.
Historical and Archaeological Correlation
Comparison of different evidence domains without forcing them to agree or treating repetition as independent corroboration.
Provenance and Custody Review
Event-by-event reconstruction of documented find, transfer, repository, conservation, and custody history, while keeping possession, custody, provenance, and title distinct.
Evidence and Confidence Assessment
Claim-by-claim assessment based on source directness, independence, consistency, contradiction, and unresolved gaps.
Research-Gap Analysis
Explicit identification of missing evidence, inaccessible records, negative searches, and outstanding verification targets.
Registry and Archival Preservation
Controlled recording of identifiers, versions, source registers, evidence matrices, and preservation metadata appropriate to the project.
Research Ethics
The institution’s research ethics emphasize respect for sacred heritage, documentation integrity, transparency, cultural sensitivity, academic responsibility, lawful and ethical stewardship, and a preference for non-invasive examination where possible. Human remains, claimed relics, sacred materials, private custodians, sensitive locations, and restricted records require additional dignity, rights, privacy, and security controls.
The institution does not treat a museum label, religious tradition, certificate design, digital identifier, scientific-sounding phrase, or repeated citation as proof of a claim beyond the evidence actually inspected.
Scholarly Review Framework
Review status is project-specific. This general appendix does not state that any particular publication has completed external peer review, scientific review, archaeological review, or independent institutional review. Each publication should report only the review that actually occurred.
Internal research review may examine source use, argument, citations, consistency, and compliance with institutional research standards.
Specialist review may be sought for archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, conservation, languages, scientific evidence, museum records, or other fields where competent expertise is required.
External scholarly review may be invited where appropriate, but invitation is not the same as completed peer review or endorsement.
Released research may be corrected, revised, superseded, or withdrawn when new verified evidence materially changes an earlier assessment.
Legal and Ethical Statements
Ownership and Title
HSWAGATA–HIRR research does not establish, transfer, confirm, or extinguish legal ownership, title, sovereignty, inheritance rights, or proprietary interests.
Provenance and Lawful Movement
A research record does not by itself prove lawful excavation, lawful export or import, complete provenance, or an unbroken chain of title.
Governmental and International Endorsement
Unless separately verified, HSWAGATA–HIRR publications are not governmental determinations and are not presented as endorsements or certifications by UNESCO, the United Nations, or another external authority.
Cultural Property
The institution supports compliance with applicable cultural-heritage, antiquities, customs, museum, and other relevant laws and ethical standards.
Religious Neutrality
Research may document doctrine, devotion, and sacred tradition but does not claim authority to issue binding doctrinal decrees on behalf of Buddhist communities or Sangha bodies.
Non-Commercial Use
Research publications are not commercial valuations, investment guarantees, auction authentications, or sales certificates.
Evidence Limitation
Every research conclusion remains bounded by the evidence, inspection status, chronology, source quality, and unresolved gaps documented for the relevant project.
Doctrinal and Devotional Traditions
Within Theravāda Buddhist traditions, sacred relics (Dhātu) carry profound devotional and religious significance. Texts, chronicles, commentaries, ritual practices, oral traditions, and living communities preserve accounts of relic veneration, sacred presence, meritorious worship, protective beings, and extraordinary events associated with relics.
The institution records such material as Buddhist religious and intangible heritage. Historical or archaeological research may study the origin, transmission, context, and reception of these traditions, but it does not automatically confirm or reject supernatural claims through empirical method.
This distinction allows devotional traditions to be represented respectfully while protecting scholarly clarity: a traditional account remains a traditional account unless an independent evidence class supports a different type of conclusion.
Religious Heritage and Devotional Tradition Statement
Theravāda Buddhist literature and later relic traditions include accounts of extraordinary qualities associated with sacred relics, including manifestation, multiplication, transformation, disappearance, relocation, and other events understood devotionally as Dhātu-pāṭihāriya. The institution preserves and documents these traditions as part of Buddhist religious heritage. They are not presented by this appendix as archaeological, scientific, legal, or governmental determinations.
Spiritual Custodianship
Within devotional traditions, custodianship may carry a spiritual meaning grounded in Saddhā (faith), Pūjā (veneration), Puñña (merit), discipline, and ethical responsibility. This spiritual understanding is distinct from physical custody, museum registration, legal possession, or legal title.
Traditional Accounts of Protective Beings
Theravāda and wider Buddhist traditions preserve accounts of devas, nāgas, and guardian beings associated with the protection of relics, stupas, monasteries, and places of worship. These accounts are documented as religious heritage and are neither verified nor rejected as empirical findings by this institutional appendix.
Interpretive Boundary for Devotional Statements
Devotional and doctrinal statements in this appendix are expressions of Buddhist religious heritage. They do not override applicable law, establish ownership or title, repair a provenance gap, identify biological material, prove archaeological context, or replace scientific evidence. Conversely, the absence of scientific verification does not erase the historical or religious significance of a documented devotional tradition.
Contact and Institutional Identification
Office of Siridantamahāpālaka
Founder and Custodian: Sao Dhammasami (Siridantamahāpālaka)
Researcher: Bhikkhu Indasoma Siridantamahāpālaka
Institution: The Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Private Museum
Research Registry: Hswagata International Relic Registry (HIRR)
Research Governance Framework: Integrated Relic Custodianship Model (IRCM)
Operations: Yangon – Bangkok
ORCID (Researcher): 0009-0000-0697-4760
Website: www.hswagata.com
Email: saodhammasami@hswagata.com
Alternative Email: saodhammasami@gmail.com
Address: No. 19, 1st Street, 1st Ward, Mayangone Township, Yangon, Myanmar.
Telephone: (+95) 9 79 888 4129; (+66) 08 27 17 0 249