The reliquary thing: the words make it sound like it is large. Dropped the reliquary into his arms, and I blink. Placed it in his hand, and I'd be happy.
Well, in this case then it sounds like your complaint isn't really related to historical accuracy but to word choice. Either way, it seems like a really trivial and overly nit-picky complaint to me.
I don't know about the 12 seconds internet search. Before I despaired of researching for accuracy in my books, I used to research a lot. I would read articles online.
But you know what? A LOT of the information online isn't accurate.
So I turned to books. But you know what? A LOT of books also have inaccurate information.
This is a very valid point. There is so much history that is not a matter of fact, but interpretation. Historians interpret the evidence and attempt to establish a picture of what the past looked like. But historians often disagree and evidence can be misleading. Especially when making a claim such as "this didn't exist at that time" one should be very, very careful because it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. I cannot count the number of articles I have read where some new discovery lead an archeologist to revise their timeline. In effect changing everything that was "known" about a certain period from one moment to the next. The reality is that there's very little we can "know" absolutely about the past. The best we can do is make our best guesses based on the evidence that remains.