RELICS IN THE NEWS: Here's an article on some famous fake or almost certainly fake ones (the Holy Grail, the true cross, and the Shroud of Turin). A few excerpts:

Searching for the Artifacts of Faith (Insight on the News, DC)
Posted April 9, 2004
By John M. Powers

During the last six months this country's mass media have discovered that old-time religion. For years references to religion among these blue-states keepers of the popular culture were limited to the usual hooting at "Islamic conservatives" or "right-wing Christians," but suddenly the elite media have caught on that God and traditional religious practice are subjects of great interest to many millions of Americans.

[...]

Mark Rose, executive editor of Archaeology magazine and a trained classical archaeologist, says that one such story [about the Holy Grail] comes from the personal journal of Arlculf, a seventh-century pilgrim to the Holy Land who wrote that, inside a chapel in Jerusalem, he beheld the chalice that Christ used at the Last Supper. The pilgrim describes the cup as a goblet made of silver to hold about a pint and having handles on either side.

Many other stories also make claims about the location of the Holy Grail, says Rose. One tells of a cup thought to be made of a huge emerald. Another insists the cup was looted from Byzantium during the fourth crusade and eventually ended up in Genoa, where it remains today. Still another account puts a cup thought to be the Holy Grail in the cathedral of Valencia, Spain, where it is said to have been pawned by Alfonso V of Aragon. Rose thinks all these claims are suspect.

If Valencia and Genoa are too far away to check out the Holy Grail, consider a pilgrimage to the Chalice of Antioch, which is kept in New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET). According to the MET's account of the chalice, it was found in or around 1908 and was supposed to be from the city of Antioch. This was a major Christian center in the first centuries of Christianity, and it is thought that Mark, who authored the oldest of the Gospels, was a leader in the church at Antioch. This apparently explains the tradition that the Chalice of Antioch is the Holy Grail.

The chalice at the MET has an outer shell decorated with birds, lambs and other animals. There are 12 human figures holding scrolls, thought to represent the disciples. Inside the shell is a simple silver bowl, which was believed to be the actual Holy Grail. These claims have not held up, however, and the chalice has been dated as being from the sixth century rather than the first, according to the MET description.

The Chalice of Antioch may nonetheless be consistent with what the actual cup of Christ looked like. Rose thinks the cup probably was a "pedestal bowl" with a "wide flaring rim" and made of silver or clay. But he adds carefully, "You end up pretty quickly into complete speculation."

[...]

Arthur Tucker, a botanist at Delaware State University, is codirector of a study recently undertaken by a team of scientists to analyze botanical evidence on the shroud. He and other critics say the carbon-dating evidence must be questioned. They say that the shroud suffered damage from a fire in 1532, and normal wear and tear during the passage of 2,000 years, with the result that certain sections were repaired. The area of the shroud from which the sample was taken was "a compromised area which has been sewn and resewn for display," says Tucker.

It's not zealotry that makes Tucker doubt the carbon dating. Rather he cites botanical evidence taken from the shroud that he reviewed with his team. To start, Tucker says, the composition of the shroud's linen is a "3-to-1 twill herringbone weave." This type of weave has been confirmed by Jewish scholars as consistent with weaving techniques known to have been used during the first century in Palestine. There is evidence on the shroud of other fabrics, but Tucker says that could be the result of contamination.

On the other hand, according to Tucker and his team of scientists, the shroud contains botanical evidence, such as pollen and flower impressions, that link it unmistakably through the years to Jerusalem, Turkey and south-central Europe, which would confirm the trail of historical ownership. Most poignant to the investigation of whether the shroud belonged to Christ is that some of the botanicals found on the shroud correspond to pollens of Jerusalem during the first century. Tucker's study concluded that 37 different species of pollen or flower impressions on the linen came from the area of Palestine, many of them from the Jerusalem area. Two species of pollen found on the shroud, Tucker points out, overlap only in Jerusalem.

Going even further with botanical evidence, Tucker says his team concluded, based on the evidence gathered in years previous, that all 37 species of pollen from the shroud not only grow around Palestine but "flower or fruit" between March and April. One species of caper found on the shroud flowers only between "3 or 4 in the afternoon."

A shroud made of linen in a first-century fashion with forensic evidence that concludes it is from Jerusalem during March or April, maybe used around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Could this in fact be the burial cloth of Jesus?

"Most probably, yes ... what we're seeing here is the burial shroud of Christ," says Tucker. He makes this conclusion based not only on the botanical evidence but on other historical evidence, such as images similar to that found on the shroud from coins of the first century.

[...]

It's a pity that the writer didn't consult any specialists in the history of burial in first-century Palestine such as Joe Zias and Shimon Gibson (the latter excavated a real first-century shroud in recent years). It's telling that they don't regard the Shroud of Turin as genuine. I'm not a specialist in this area but, as things stand, I'm going to bet with the experts. It's also a pity that a scientist takes it upon himself to pontificate on historical matters outside his specialty. He may have found some interesting botanical evidence, but that doesn't qualify him to evaluate the historical evidence. And I can't help thinking that he's overinterpreting his botanical evidence a bit when he implies he can tell us what time the shroud was used. It would take time to weave the thing and it probably wouldn't be used immediately after it was woven, and it would have been getting pollen on it during the whole process.

I'm not saying that what he's found shouldn't be carefully evaluated by peer review and cross-checking by other experts. For starters, let's see his team get this research published in a peer-review paleobotany journal. Likewise, I'm not opposed to having another C-14 test done (if the Vatican authorities would allow it, which is iffy). It's generally useful to have more information. But if people think the first test was botched, let them write up their objections and get them published in a peer-review journal on radiocarbon dating. What I am against is having important issues like these aired only in places like the popular media, popular lectures, museum exhibits for the public, and the like. Peer-review publishing is a long-established process for informed conversation about scientific and historical questions. It's not perfect, but it sure clears a lot of nonsense out the way, and I generally don't put much stock into claims that have not yet passed this hurdle.

In the meantime, it's not good to jump to conclusions, and attempts to authenticate the Shroud have a poor enough track record that we shouldn't get excited every time someone comes up with a new argument.

UPDATE: The information about the facial image on the back side of the Shroud has been published in a peer-review article. More here (scroll down to today's update).