The Origins of Greyhawk Artifacts and Relics

I differentiate between the terms "artifact" and "relic"--D&D 3rd Edition doesn't distinguish between the two, and also creates the "minor artifact" category to cover powerful magic items such as Spheres of Annihilation, Decks of Many Things, Staves of the Magi, etc.  I like this designation, and apply it to relics as well.  

What constitutes a major artifact, or a minor relic, then?  Greyhawk is famous for its unique magical items (Gygax and Kuntz seemed to create unique and new items all of the time in their adventures).  In my view, the following subjective elements form the core for my definition of an artifact or relic, and each should be present for a magical item to classified as an artifact or relic:

• Unique (although not necessarily solitary)

• Very powerful (artifacts and relics I designate as 'minor' do not possess Prime Powers or their equivalent)

• Substantial body of folklore and/or significant to history

• Very difficult to destroy

• Manufactured (may not necessarily apply to relics)

• Significant to an Oerthly religion (relics only)

While I do not count powerful, non-unique items as major artifacts, I do consider tomes like the Demonomicon of Iggwilv (Gygax and Kuntz's version of The Necronomicon) or The Tome of the Black Heart to be minor artifacts:  they are unique items, although multiple copies of each may exist.  

Some items that I do not generally consider major artifacts include intelligent magical swords (unless of exceptional power like Blackrazor or Hunger), unique but relatively low-signifcance items (like The Gauntlet and The Sentinel from UK2-3), etc.  I add various traditional artifacts to the "minor artifact" category, as well, especially if they have little to no impact to Greyhawk's history or legends.  

Major Artifacts

Minor Artifacts

Major Relics

Minor Relics