The author dedicates huge amounts of research and an entire book to the topic of a note found in the eye socket of the skull. He goes to elaborate lengths to disprove the claims, and many of the details, in the note. In fact, he argues strenuously that the writer of the note is quite unreliable. Yet the main claim of the note, the most essential fact to question, and the one on which the entire book is based, goes unquestioned, that this is the skull of the named individual, Alum Bheg (or Alim Beg).
Wagner's premise seems entirely illogical, that the writer of the note, Costello, is a poorly-informed, and perhaps lying, witness to the execution, and yet entirely truthful in identifying and naming the executed sepoy whose skull this is supposed to be.
Venturing off to global ports of call, Wagner has and spent uncountable months in his labours, resurrecting the life and fate of 19th-century Indian soldier whose name he got from the note. But the note is a statement by a different 19th-century soldier whose claims Wagner has already argued, perhaps proved, are untrue. If all of Costello's allegations in the note about Bheg are misreported, if not outright lies, why should we believe Costello's claims of the skull's identity? Regardless of how entertaining the book might be, it's presented as history, as nonfiction, when in fact it may be entirely based on fiction. I have put these questions to the author, and I'm hoping for a reply.