Fair enough, I have elaborated my criticism in other comments. The reference to Hemmingway might seem flippant, but my point was that the Iliad is told in a cer

Fair enough, I have elaborated my criticism in other comments. The reference to Hemmingway might seem flippant, but my point was that the Iliad is told in a certain genre or style where thoughts and mental states or not directly described, only events and actions. This is a particular style of narrative which is not confined to a specific stage in human development but exist throughout history, and even today is pretty popular ("show, don't tell"). Movies generally follow this form and voice-overs explaining the characters thoughts are the exception rather than the rule. So to claim that the narrative style of the Iliad shows that the people does not have a concept of mind and did not have self awareness is just not justified. The narrative style certainly does not prove that, but on the other hand it is impossible to disprove that Achilles lacked consciousness. Which puts this theory into the realm of the nonfalsifiable. This is akin to the crackpot theory that the ancient Greeks were not able to perceive the color blue, because that word does not occur in Homer. This is just an incredibly naive understanding of the connection between mind and language. While Homeric Greek might not have such a word, there is absolutely no evidence that their sensory system was different. Furthermore, taking the Iliad as face value is highly problematic. While historians generally agree that there probably was a war, there is no evidence that any of the persons actually existed or existed at the time. The characters might be legendary or mythological. Note that basically all of them descends from gods a few generations back. Achilles is literally half-god. We know that Helen was worshiped as a deity in Sparta for example. If she was actually a mythological figure, we don't really need some complicated psychological theory to explain how one mythological being could talk to another! So I think it is fair to say the theory have a naive approach to literature. The second part of the criticism is that the theory does not actually explain anything. The bicameral mind is supposed to explain how people at the time interacted with Gods. It was actually just the other half of the brain giving advice. OK, but the theory also claims that the the integration of the mind happens some time between the composition of the Iliad and the Odyssey (because Odysseys clearly do have a concept of mind with first-person narrative and so on). Which means the theory can't explain the gods appearing in the Odyssey.