Dorothy M. Figueira, Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorizing Authority through Myths Identity Albany: State University New York Press, 2002, vii + 205 pp. In Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorizing Authority throughMyths Identity, Dorothy Figueira examines a variety European and Indian thinkers who, by reinterpreting in ways that accorded texts historical value at key historical moments, constructed ideologies Aryan. In part 1, Figueira examines European Romanticmythographers' construction theVedic Golden Age, Friedrich Max Muller's return to Vedas, and Nietzsche's turn to Laws Manu to construct a past for Europeans. Part 2 focuses on role Indian thinkers such as Raja Rammohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati, Justice Ranade, LokmayaTilak, and Swami Vivekanand in reinterpreting Hindu scriptures during quest for an Indian national identity under British colonial rule, in ways that maintained position Indian eliteswithin social hierarchy and justiffed caste exclusion. In chapter 8, Figueria juxtaposes against elite reconstructions Aryan myth work low-caste social reformers such as Jotirao Phule and B. R. Ambedkar, who subverted nationalist script by questioning Vedas' canonical status, seeking to overturn Aryan racialmyth togetherwith its triumphant justiffcation for maintenance hierarchical relationswithin Indian society. One most interesting chapters, Phule and Ambedkar's demonstrates that nineteenth-century India saw areas reform that were hardly touched by relationships colonial power and significantly address issue Indian hegemonic (158). In recovering voices Phule and Ambedkar, Figueira launches a fierce critique against postcolonial theory, which, in her estimation, remains deaf to such subaltern voices they attacked an enemy who was not colonial power, but an opponent from whose ranks critics themselves spring and within whose hegemonic structure knowledge and discourse they continue to operate (158). Figueira's advice that students of postcolonial theory should explore such histories and representations because they resonate in our continuing arguments with contemporary racism (159) is salutary, as is her caution about danger overlooking internal abuses power, whether overt or subtle, which may be obscured by considering colonialism as the hegemonic evil (158). …