>>41107004
Thank you fren.

Weird as fuck to me that there are apparently people on /x/ who haven't already known about this not-very-obscure site for 15+ years, but such are the times we live in, I guess.

Anyway, the site's good as long as you're conscious of its limitations. It's all stuff in public domain, so with few exceptions, the ancient material on there is largely composed of inadmissibly bad translations that were done a century or more ago when Western scholars had very crude understandings of some of the original languages of those writings. E.g., the Griffith Ṛgveda is probably something you could read cover to cover and come away with a poorer understanding of Vedic religion than you might've gotten from spending a day casually researching on Wikipedia. Overall, it's a great resource at that precocious-teenager-wanting-to-figure-it-all-out stage of life, when you literally haven't even heard of a lot of the texts on there yet, but virtually useless once you've gotten your bearings in ancient history.

I've combed the website and my conclusion is that a lot it is very cool and interesting, but then there is the idea or theory that this site is no different than other places of information, and in that this information skewed to push a narrative or mislead civilization, or make assumptions/theory about what is to make of this ancient information, or try and rationalize it into some sort of logical reason as to why this happened back then. Thus proving this site is kind of gay, and readers will need to pick away the bullshit to try and understand.