The book begins with a chapter on Becket's life and death and the history of his shrine, destroyed in 1538 by the Royal Commissioners for the Destruction of Shrines (what a great name).  Then, in 1888, bones were found just below the floor of the eastern crypt.  Whose were they?  Examiners said they were the remains of a tall, middle-aged man.  Everyone immediately thought of Becket (as they had from the start anyway, which probably influenced the examiners).

There was concern over the Church of England turning toward Catholicism.  It didn't ease Protestant minds to have the possible remains of a major Roman Catholic saint turn up.

The skeleton was reinterred.  Some aspects of it suggested it was Becket, but others negated that.  For instance, the skull wasn't damaged in a way consistent with his wounds.  There was much debate.  Had Becket's remains secretly been hidden from the commissioners?

In 1949 the grave was reopened.  The bones had deteriorated since their last appearance, but a reexamination was able to determine that they were not in fact the remains of the archbishop.  The skull fractures were all postmortem.  Interestingly, several animal bones were mixed in with the skeleton, in addition to a fragment of a second human, pointing to the skeleton originally having been buried elsewhere, among other remains.

So whose bones were these, if not Becket's?  And what did happen to Becket?  Was he reburied by monks, or burned by the commissioners?  Were his bones shot out of a cannon?  Were the real bones hidden before the commissioners arrived?  Was there any connection between Becket and the 1888 grave?  The book carefully examines five hypotheses but, at the end, the mystery remains.
 

When I picked the book up to review it, my eye fell on the subtitle.  My instinctual reaction was, "They're not relics, they're ARTIFACTS."  Then I realized "relics" was used in its legitimate sense here.  But, speaking as an archaeologist, please don't refer to artifacts as relics.  That's looter terminology.

The book is full of wonderful illustrations, many in color, and including some familiar ones.  In fact, I think this is where I first heard of the Becket Leaves.  I know it's where I first heard of The Becket Factor.

"It was as though, from the moment of the discovery, the participants in the debate had made up their minds about the matter, and were using the apparent facts of the case not to form their opinions but to endorse conclusions they had already reached" (p 44).  Isn't that how it often goes (unfortunately)?

In the discussion of the perceived threat of Catholicism, it's mentioned that parts of this threat were such seemingly innocuous things as lighted candles on the altar, the use of vestments, and the giving of the sign of the cross at the blessing.  Popishness!  And to think I've known people who approve of all the former to become incensed (no pun intended) at things like chanting prayers.  It looks like it's all a matter of degree, once you've started down that slippery slope.  (I myself was surprised to find that you could light candles in Canterbury Cathedral, but at the time I was younger, so much younger than today, and knew approximately less than half of what I do now.)

It's natural for me to find this book interesting.  Not only does it have the Becket, uh, factor (heh), it also has bones, and I've always been fascinated by stories of forensic anthropology.  Besides that, though, there's also the allure of mystery, of ancient secrets revealed (the kind of thing that draws viewers to pseudoarchaeological TV shows [I've added a related link below]).  Elements such as the mention that a few people believed Becket was hidden in the coffin of Odet de Coligny, or the allegation (not by the author) that a few people know The Truth about the relics add to this aura.

The person who alleged there were a few people (including William Urry) who knew the true resting place of Becket's relics did so under the pseudonym "Thomas Chough."  I had read this book a couple of times before I noticed what a perfect name that was.  The author doesn't comment on the name, so I don't know if its cleverness is so obvious it needs no comment or so obscure he didn't notice, or what.  If the former, it must be more obvious to the British, because a chough is an Old World bird, also known as...a beckit.  Thomas used them on his coat of arms.
 

Some books on bones and their stories (just off the top of my head - there are many):

Dead Men Do Tell Tales by William R. Maples and Michael Browning

Bones by Douglas Ubelaker

This page covers a lot of the same material as the book.

ForensicAnthro.com

Doug's Archaeology Site - many links to both legitimate archaeology and the debunking of pseudoarchaeology