Basically, this is a book that claims the inconsistencies in Homer are explained due to geographical error: Homer's stories took place in the Baltic. The author relies on geography, place names, and climatology to link the geography, place names, and climate described in the Iliad and Odyssey in order to locate those events to Northern Europe during a time when there was a climactic optimatum which rendered that part of the world much warmer and fertile than it is today. Then, as the temperature once again receded, these Northerners took the very same river routes down to Greece, where they settled, and, being excellent sailors and thus geographers by extension, gave place names to the Aegean that were similar to their Baltic originals and in corresponding positions. With the Dorian invasions, these Mycenaeans were overthrown, and the coming Greek culture forgot their Northern roots.
All that's left is for archaeologists to go digging around the Baltic and validate the claims.
It sounds pretty convincing to me so far, but I really do need that archaeology. Until then, I can't be certain about it.
>only people with degrees in one particular field can be right about things having to do with that field
The area of the square built upon the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares upon the remaining sides and if two lines are drawn which intersect a third on a flat plane in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough, but don't trust me cause I don't have a degree in mathematics.
This. Reading that he talks about place names and etymology as well, gotta say armchair linguists are even worse.
>Dan sounds vaguely similar to Danmark so Danes are a lost tribe of Israel :DDDDDDD
Extraordinary claims require proper credentials and also extraordinary evidence, and fyi academics actually took him seriously and discarded his bullshit anyways. You can read a brief summary in the wikipedia article of the fucking bullshit book.
>proper credentials and also evidence
You don't need credentials if you have evidence, and you make the mistake of assuming he doesn't have evidence simply because he does not possess the credentials you deem important.
I was talking about amateur researchers in general, not about this author in particular, so it was argumentum ad verecundiam at worst. Russia for example is plagued with these crackpot armchair retards without knowing anything about linguistics and some of the shit they "discover" is downright outrageous and hysterically idiotic.
Anatolia is the one part that's actually Turkish.
You are just baiting but I'll repeat myself, even though I discard him from the get go, there are academics who take his stuff seriously (as if he has credentials), who examined his evidence and who discarded his works anyways.
You are some kind of balkan nationalist who think you invented everything thats why you hold this pseudoscientific sacrosanct while trying to discredit academia.
Considering the ancestors of the Greeks lived near the Baltic, I don't think it's too farfetched.
I'm not saying academia is perfect but lets look at the facts,
1-The guy has no credential, I wonder he even knows homeric greek
2-No Archaeological evidence to back up his claims
3-His claims are disputed by academics who studied the subject as professionals
The only reason you try to discredit them is due to the fact they don't play into your protochronist bullshit. I highly suspect you just bait people but regardless. Your arguments are ICP "fucking magnets-scientists lie to people " tier
>absolutely on par with ancient aliens
so it has a degree of academic support?
I'd argue that it's even lower.
Who wants to know what was going on in a warm BC Northern Europe anyways?
Daily Reminder Academics know jack shit and you should learn your history from TV
Absolutely nothing we know about proto Indo-Europeans suggests they were sea-faring and the technology and customs they brought south to the Med indicate the were landlocked steppe-dwellers.
It's also laughable to assume 2nd cent BC Baltic had any of the wealth or surplus or organisation to equip and support fleets and armies, or the political unity to launch a invasions.
>It's a well fortified city in a trade heavy location
>Was obviously wealthy
>Just by the shoreline
>Obviously was attacked and burned down in the late bronze age
>Features landmarks that almost explicitly match Homer
>The Hittites mention foghting ocer it
>The Romans built a thene park on it
It's as close to Troy as one can get.
That should be *2nd millennium.
>Indo-Aryan Baltic migration
What private fantasy is this? Proto indo Europeans spread from the regions North of the Caucasus. Those are people who emigrated to India and the Ageaen.
>Indo-Aryans are somehow different from Indo-Europeans
They're all Kurgans.
We found what the author asserts is New Troy, the Troy that the migrant Mycenaeans named after their old Troy in the Baltic.
He talks about those things in conjunction with climate, geography, as well as the narrative put forth in the books themselves, which makes sense finally and only in a Baltic context: Homer's works become more historical in this way.
Actually it just says academics disagree, but they haven't discredited him.
OP here. So basically, this is my first visit to this board, my first post and thread, and already I am sort of turned off. You are the same sort of brutal, conformist mob of closed-minded bigots that one can find anywhere. Rather than actually reading the book and addressing the claims within, your first reaction is to immediately write the author and the work off because it contradicts the mainstream narrative. You demonstrate no critical thinking, no exercise of reason on your own, just the typical elitist attitude towards anyone putting forward a new theory about something.
I deal with people like you every day. It is just as Yuri Bezmenov says: I can show you the evidence, I can show you pictures and demonstrate something to you with reason, but because you are so trained in your ways to reject all of this, it is like you are incapable of critical thought anymore. You become the strong-arm of the present conformity.
If you have actual arguments against what the book claims, rather than just endless ad hominems against the author, that's great. I'd love to discuss it with you. I don't necessarily buy the author's theory (I'm leaning towards it however) and I just want to discuss it.