Is anyone qualified to weigh in on the academic robustness of this?
I only scanned a few bits but I was surprised to see statements like "the male skeleton had a knee injury, thus conclusively proving it was Philip" and "the female skeleton was 18 therefore proving it was Cleopatra since sources say she was young". (Paraphrasing) Etc etc. Is that all it takes to "prove" something? Could it not just be coincidence and it was someone else with a knee injury and some other ~18 year old? Or is that as far as we need to go in archeology to prove something? Put 2 and 2 together and come up with Cleopatra?
There also seems to be some sort of almost personal/ad hominem type stuff later on about other researchers who apparently criticised the author's work which surprised me ("Prag, Musgrave, and Neave continue to argue that I remain silent about Cyna ... as if it is an important issue"...)
I only scanned a few bits but I was surprised to see statements like "the male skeleton had a knee injury, thus conclusively proving it was Philip" and "the female skeleton was 18 therefore proving it was Cleopatra since sources say she was young". (Paraphrasing) Etc etc. Is that all it takes to "prove" something? Could it not just be coincidence and it was someone else with a knee injury and some other ~18 year old? Or is that as far as we need to go in archeology to prove something? Put 2 and 2 together and come up with Cleopatra?
There also seems to be some sort of almost personal/ad hominem type stuff later on about other researchers who apparently criticised the author's work which surprised me ("Prag, Musgrave, and Neave continue to argue that I remain silent about Cyna ... as if it is an important issue"...)
Is this legit research?