Powered By Blogger

Monday, April 20, 2026

Following Middle Bronze I Israel after the Exodus from cruel Egypt

 


 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

  

The people of Israel had witnessed the miraculous and had the miraculous ever before them in the form of the Glory Cloud (popularly known as the Shekinah).

  

Introduction

 

After the miraculous Exodus from Egypt, a sign that was meant to be remembered down through the generations (cf. Deuteronomy 6:6-7), Moses and his people sang of the Lord’s power and glory (Exodus 15:1-21).

 

Moses, so eager when in Egypt to free his people - but having succumbed to the comforts of married life during his long sojourn in Midian, hoping that the Lord might consider someone else for the daunting task - was now fully reconciled again to what the Lord was asking from him.

Family life seems to have become a matter of secondary importance – though there will soon be a moment of controversy regarding his Midianite wife, Zipporah.

 

But it would not be long before the people of Moses, the Israelites, despite all that had recently happened, took to their customary grumbling again. Only 2 verses into the next chapter of the Book of Exodus do we read (16:2-3):

 

In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, ‘If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death’.

 

At the forefront of this would be that ungrateful Reubenite pair, Dathan and Abiram (“Jannes and Jambres” as St. Paul would much later call them, 2 Timothy 3:8).

 

Some fellow Levites would also rise up in rebellion against Moses.

 

And so, even, would Moses’ own older brother and sister, Aaron and Miriam.

 

God detests ingratitude.

 

Psalm 105:21-25 (Douay version) sums up what the Lord had done for Israel and how ungrateful Israel had repaid Him:

 

They forgot God, who saved them, who had done great things in Egypt, Wondrous works in the land of Cham: terrible things in the Red Sea. And he said that he would destroy them: had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach: To turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them. And they set at nought the desirable land. They believed not his word, And they murmured in their tents: they hearkened not to the voice of the Lord.

 

The C20th world, too, had forgotten God, prompting Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to recall the old lament: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened”.

 

 

Still, we have forgotten Him, hence our world gone utterly mad.

 

The people of Israel had witnessed the miraculous and had the miraculous ever before them in the form of the Glory Cloud (popularly known as the Shekinah).

 

The Gentile nations, aware of all of this, were also meant to acknowledge the might and power of the Lord. When they didn’t, when peoples like the Amalekites, the Ammonites and the Moabites, the giant king Og of Bashan, hindered Israel on its path to the Promised Land, the Lord rose up in fury against these as well.

 

The historical context

 

As I have noted previously:

My purpose has been, not so much theological and interpretive, as an effort to show that the Bible is real history, with a firm archaeology (and sometimes geology) underpinning the whole of it.

Geographical corrections have also proven to be a crucial part of this task.

 

Possibly no other part of the Bible lends itself more satisfactorily to an archaeological investigation than does the Exodus and Joshuan Conquest.

It should be - and indeed is - in plain sight. 

 

Sadly however, as we have read, the yoking of the Bible to an overblown chronology (by the likes of Dr. Albright and Fr. Louis Hugues-Vincent) has resulted in the massive amount of archaeological evidence for the Exodus and the Conquest becoming completely overlooked, with a different (and totally unsuitable) era preferred by the experts.

 

As we have determined, Moses departed Midian not long after the termination of the cruelly oppressive Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt, whose last ruler, briefly, was a female. Moses and Aaron would now face the Thirteenth Dynasty pharaoh, a man of military background, Neferhotep I. Archaeologically, it was this providential point in time, when workmen are found to have abandoned their sites at places like Illahûn, that Egyptianised ‘Asiatics’ (the fleeing Israelites) would depart from Egypt, later to be replaced by Non-Egyptianised ‘Asiatics’, the Hyksos invaders.

 

These, we shall probably meet as the Amalekites.

 

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had called the Hyksos invasion of a greatly weakened Egypt “the Eleventh Plague”.

 

Grumbling Israel

 

The manna with which the Lord would so providentially feed in abundance the grumbling Israelites was almost certainly not a purely miraculous phenomenon, like the quails which also came, since both have been experienced in this desert region.

 

Rightly, though, the manna has become a symbol of the Blessed Eucharist.

 

Later, the famous image of the bronze serpent suspended on a pole will become a symbol of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and will be biblically interpreted as such (John 3:14): ‘Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him’.

 

Return to Mount Sinai

 

The Exodus route taken by the Israelites to Mount Sinai, and the identification of the mountain, have become the topic of interest of countless articles and videos.

 

But no two of these seem to agree. 

 

Immediately to be rejected are those interpretations that do not take into consideration that a great mass of nomadic people wandering in desert regions would be in need of regular drinking water stopping points, wells, along the way.

 

The beauty of professor Emmanuel Anati’s proposed Exodus route is that it has been determined by one who has had decades of archaeological experience in the regions and has duly taken into account the need for drinking water, not to mention the location of the tribes mentioned in the Exodus account: Midian, Amalek, etc.

 

Previously, it has been suggested that a location of the Sea of Reeds closer to Egypt than Anati’s Lake Serbonis would be preferable, and that – while his location of Israel’s encampment in the Karkom Valley appears to fit very well indeed – the holy mountain may not actually be his choice of Har Karkom there, but rather a mysterious mountain right in the centre of the Karkom Valley, as identified by professor Anati’s colleague, Flavio Barbiero.

 

Both the professor and Flavio Barbiero appear to be in harmony, though, with the location of Rephidim and its important water source (they locate it at Beer Karkom), about which we next read (Exodus 17:1-7):

 

The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. So they quarreled with Moses and said, ‘Give us water to drink’.

Moses replied, ‘Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?’

But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, ‘Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst’?

Then Moses cried out to the Lord, ‘What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me’.

The Lord answered Moses, ‘Go out in front of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink’. So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the Lord saying, ‘Is the Lord among us or not?’

 

Israel’s grumbling had become so insistent that places were even named after it.

 

Sunday, April 5, 2026

Four great kings self-identified as ‘son of a nobody’ – or was this just the one mighty ruler?

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

Here, I have selected four names, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nabopolassar and Nabonidus, whom I have identified in various articles as only one king. For example:

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel

 

(2) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel

 

and:

 

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

(2) Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’

 

Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship.

 

Thus I had previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”.

 

Now, Esarhaddon is presented by Mattias Karlsson, as a likely ‘son of a nobody’, in his article:

 

The Expression "Son of a Nobody" in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

2016

https://www.academia.edu/24256060/The_Expression_Son_of_a_Nobody_in_Assyrian_Royal_Inscriptions

 

…. Esarhaddon may be the "son of a nobody" in question. Regarding this epithet, we here have another attestation of it as carrying a positive meaning. It is said of this "son of a nobody", which probably alludes to Esarhaddon (or at least to this king’s irregular ascent to the throne), even though he was of royal descent (Roux 1992: 324-25), that he "[will come out and se]ize [the throne]; he will restore the temples [and establish sacrifices of the gods; he will provide jointly for(all) the temples.]" ….

 

Who was the actual father of this composite king of ours?

If we turn to consider him with regard to his alter ego, “Nabonidus”, then:

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchman-s-teaching-letter-59-march-2003

"His father was a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who is called the ‘wise prince’, though actually he seems to have been the chief priest of the once famous temple of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamian Harran".

 

My tentative comment: It is not entirely impossible, I think, that, with Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar:

 

“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel

 

(2) "Nebuchednezzar" of the Book of Daniel

 

then this Nabu-balatsu-iqbi could be the prophet Daniel himself, possibly known as “father” to the Babylonians as the shrewd Haman would become known as “our father” to the Persians according to the Book of Esther (13:11).

Daniel’s Babylonian name, “Belteshazzar” is not a Bel name, like e.g. Belshazzar, as is commonly thought. King Nebuchednezzar himself tells us (Daniel 4:8): “Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god)”. Thus we would expect Daniel to have a Nabu (Nebu) name, like King Nebuchednezzar himself. “Belteshazzar” could then be a Grecized version of the element balatsu-:

Nabu-balatsu-iqbi - Wikipedia

“In his inscriptions, Nabonidus refers to his father Nabu-balatsu-iqbi as a "learned counsellor",[1] "wise prince", "perfect prince" and "heroic governor".[2] Nabonidus never elaborates more on his father's origin and ethnicity, just maintaining that he was courageous, wise and devout.[3] No person named Nabu-balatsu-iqbi who can reasonably be identified as Nabonidus's father appears in documents prior to Nabonidus's reign, making his father's status and position unclear”.

 

As for Ashurbanipal, generally  considered to have been the son of Esarhaddon - but, according to my first article above, he was Esarhaddon - the reason why he (and logically, then, his alter egos) did not expect to become king was that he was by no means the first in line to the succession.

 

First came one Sin-iddina-apla, who died untimely:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ashurbanipal-oldest-surviving-royal-library-world-over-30000-clay-tablets-007127

“Ashurbanipal had initially not been expected to succeed his father, Esarhaddon [sic], as king, since he had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla. When this brother died in 672 BC, Ashurbanipal was made his father’s heir.

Since Ashurbanipal was not originally intended to inherit the kingship prior to his elder brother’s death, he was free to indulge in scholarly pursuits. As a result of this, he was able to read and write, and mastered various fields of knowledge, including mathematics and oil divination. It is perhaps due to this that Ashurbanipal had his royal library built after he had stabilized his empire. ….

But apparently Ashurbanipal was not even next in line after Sin-iddina-apla.

For, at presumably the same time as Sin-iddina-apla, the oldest in line, had been appointed Crown Prince of Assyria, one Shamash-shum-ukin, he also older than Ashurbanipal, was appointed as the ruler of Babylon”.

 

This Shamash-shum-ukin was, therefore, presumed to have been superior to Ashurbanipal.

 

My comment: I do not, however, believe that this Shamash-shum-ukin was the brother of Ashurbanipal, but was his son:

 

Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

(2) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

However, that is apparently not how Ashurbanipal wanted history to know of the relationship. As explained by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44088732.pdf

 

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN: A TALE OF TWO BROTHERS FROM THEARAMAIC TEXT IN DEMOTIC SCRIPT: PART 1

Author(s): Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims

Source: Revue Biblique (1946-), Vol. 92, No. 1 (JANVIER 1985), pp. 60-81

 

Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin were the two sons of Esarhaddon [sic] who, at their father's behest, divided his realm between them - the former becoming king of Assyria, and the latter, king of Babylon(ia). Although the two were, in theory, "equal brothers," [sic] Ashurbanipal assumed full control of Babylonia's foreign policy and even meddled in Babylonia's internal affairs. …. It was perhaps to rationalize this usurpation of the authority granted to Shamash-shum-ukin by his father that Ashurbanipal claimed to be the one who had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin to the kingship of Babylon. ….

 

Son of a nobody explained

“In ancient Assyrian sources, the phrase "son of a nobody" (akk| | mār lā mamman) is used to indicate a king of disreputable origins. Usurpers, lowborns, immoral rulers, and foreign kings were all commonly referred to as a “son of a nobody”.[1]

….

In the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the king Nabopolassar strikingly referred to himself as a “son of a nobody” in his own inscriptions, something that no previous Neo-Babylonian usurper king had done.[6]

 

Monday, March 30, 2026

Pharaoh Akhnaton sticks out in history books like a sore thumb



 

“The priests of Amun would likely have suffered the worst of these changes

as Akhenaten’s main political rivals. This is shown by records of Akhenaten singling them out to perform the most demeaning tasks he could muster”.

Austin Crouch

 

In 2023, Austin Crouch wrote an eminently readable article on pharaoh Akhnaton (Akhenaten), which article, however, suffers, in part, from being conceived within the context of the conventional chronology.

  

Here I (Damien Mackey) would like to re-visit Austin’s fine article, but with some of my own comments added throughout the course of it.

 

Akhenaten: Prophet or Tyrant?

 

Akhenaten upended the traditional Egyptian religion,

but did he go too far with his reforms?

 

Akhenaten is undoubtedly one of the most enigmatic and controversial figures not only in Egyptian history, but antiquity at large. From the early days of his reign to his death, Akhenaten challenged many Egyptian traditions, including the things that helped Egypt prosper. He was not afraid to wield his authority with a heavy hand when necessary. From his physical appearance to his major overhaul of Egyptian theology, Akhenaten sticks out in history books like a sore thumb. Keep reading if you want to learn about this fascinating ruler.

 

Who was Akhenaten?

 

So, who was Akhenaten and how was a single ruler able to turn both the Egyptian government and the national religion upside down? Akhenaten’s childhood is a bit of a mystery to this day. However, most scholars can agree that Akhenaten was born around 1353 B.C.E as the son of Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his wife Queen Tiye.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: Since I entirely accept Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s re-dating of the El Amarna (EA) period, and hence of Akhnaton, from the conventional C14th BC to the C9th BC, I cannot at all accept the above date of 1353 [BC].

Amongst my multi-identifications for Akhnaton, in correspondence with the Bible, as both the Syrian Na’aman and Hazael (Dr. Velikovsky’s Aziru of EA), I must reject that Akhnaton was a member of the royal family (whether Syrian or Egyptian).

Akhnaton’s life as Amenhotep, before he became pharaoh, is far less of “a mystery to this day” if he be equated with the military man, Na’aman/Hazael, and also, in Egypt, with the famous Amenhotep son of Hapu, serving the master-king Ben-Hadad I of Syria who was the same as pharaoh Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’. See also my article:

 

Ben-Hadad I was a true master-king

 

(4) Ben-Hadad I was a true master-king

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

Akhenaten was born during what is now referred to as the “New Kingdom” which was a period characterized by wealth and expansion for Egypt. His original name was Amenhotep IV—the Pharaoh would later adopt his more well-known persona of Akhenaten, after the creation of his new cult. For the first several years of his reign, Akhenaten likely shared the throne with his father.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: As Akhnaton was a usurper, as already indicated, he did not share any co-regency with Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’ (Ben Hadad I), whom he assassinated.

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

This is also when Akhenaten most likely took his most prominent queen, Nefertiti, a woman whose beauty was so renowned that her name means “The beautiful one is come.” The father and son partnership ended with Amenhotep III’s death opening the door for Akhenaten to introduce his own sweeping changes in government, religion and art.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: As Na’aman, Akhnaton already had a “wife” while he was a leper serving the Syrian king, Ben-Hadad I (2 Kings 5:2-3).

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

….

In the years preceding Akhenaten’s rule, Egypt’s religious structure had already seen a considerable amount of change. Throughout the reign of Akhenaten’s father, the god Amun and by extension his cult and priests, had steadily grown in influence and power to become the unrivaled central Egyptian deity. However, in the fifth year of his reign, Amenhotep IV uprooted Egyptian life by asserting the dominance of the god Aten, who was now not only the supreme god, but the only god to be worshiped in all of Egypt. The effect this would have had on daily life in Egypt would have been immense, particularly in urban centers where Akhenaten’s new laws could be enforced.

 

What was the Aten and how did it change Egypt?

 

In the beginning of Akhenaten’s rule, the Aten was an anthropomorphized sun god similar to any other. However, as part of Akhenaten’s reforms, the Aten was now simply portrayed as a sun-like disk situated high in the sky. The Aten was often depicted as shining its rays over the royal family. According to Akhenaten, he and his family had a unique relationship with the Aten, as they were the only ones who would communicate or connect with the god. So not only did Akhenaten outlaw the worship of any of the traditional gods, but he also blocked the creation of any priestly class and/or cult, like those that had existed for the god Amun. Akhenaten then had the capital moved from Thebes, which had acted as Egypt’s capital for centuries, to his newly built city now known as Amarna. The name of this new capital would later function as the inspiration for the name of the 16-year period (The Amarna Period) during which Amarna was the capital of Egypt.

 

 

Was this new religion an example of early monotheism?

 

For centuries, these decisions have puzzled historians and theologians alike. The religion Akhenaten implemented, sounds a lot like monotheism, centuries before the monotheistic Abrahamic religions. There are some curious overlaps between Akhenaten’s ideology and later monotheistic texts. One example is the eerie similarity between The Hymn of the Aten and Psalm 104 from the Bible. 

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: Not so, according to the revised chronology.

Akhnaton post-dates even king David of Israel, thus he was hardly “centuries before the monotheistic Abrahamic religions”.

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

However, while the possibility that Akhenaten was the world’s first monotheist was entertained in earlier decades, more recent consensus among historians has resulted in a different conclusion. As mentioned earlier, throughout the centuries leading up to Akhenaten’s reign the cult of Amun and its priests had grown powerful. So powerful, in fact, that they could rival the wealth and power of the throne. As a result, it is now accepted by many historians that Akhenaten became a religious pioneer out of political necessity.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: No, his embrace of monotheism was due to his cure from leprosy, as Na’aman, and his consequent radical conversion.

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

Akhenaten needed to recenter Egypt’s focus on the royal family, specifically their unique importance at the top of not only the government, but the religious hierarchy as well.

 

What did this new world look like for Egyptians? 

 

While these sweeping changes would have been a shock to many and were probably seen as heavy handed, there is little evidence that Akhenaten relied on outright violence to enforce these changes. More rural areas may not have seen much enforcement at all. Although his capital city of Amarna may have had a more militarized police force than previously seen in Egyptian cities, leading some historians to portray Akhenaten in a more tyrannical light.

 

Additionally, Akhenaten issued orders to have, what he perceived as serious threats to his power or ideology, destroyed. This included anything to do with Amun or anything that could indicate the existence of multiple deities and perhaps some previous rulers as well. The priests of Amun would likely have suffered the worst of these changes as Akhenaten’s main political rivals. This is shown by records of Akhenaten singling them out to perform the most demeaning tasks he could muster.

While Akhenaten did not expressly use violence to control his people, he was certainly aware that violence was an option for both him and his enemies. Some scholars speculate that it was paranoia that led to the construction of Amarna, due to the speed with which the city was constructed and the royal family moved there.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: Akhnaton was essentially a military man.

And:

 

Akhetaton was ‘an armed camp’

 

(4) Akhetaton was 'an armed camp'

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

Did Akhenaten neglect foreign policy?

 

In addition to his internal reforms, Akhenaten also took a different approach to foreign affairs than his predecessors. Overall, the New Kingdom was a time of prosperity and expansion. This outward view was driven by Pharaohs whose names and deeds would last the ages (and whose exploits are also well worth your time) such as Ramesses II and Thutmose III. Akhenaten, however, had no interest in international affairs or territorial conquests unless they could benefit him personally. Instead, Akhenaten was almost purely inwardly focused with his religious reforms. This was much to the dismay of his subjects and vassal states who were left to their own devices, even in the face of military defeat and conquest by foreign powers.

Did Akhenaten have an unusual physiology?

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: As King Hazael, Akhnaton was constantly campaigning in the north, and, after him, his son, Ben-Hadad II.

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

….

Aside from his religious and political reforms, Akhenaten had another curiosity: his physique. 

Akhenaten gave rise to a new style of art and architecture — one of the most prominent changes here being the depiction of Akhenaten himself and his family. Interestingly, in this new art style the whole royal family is shown as having unnatural proportions. With arms and legs that appear too long and spindly, elongated necks and stretched craniums. These strange depictions even gave rise to the theory that Akhenaten was a woman due to his statues having very wide hips. 

 

To this day scholars are somewhat divided as to what is behind this bizarre imagery. It is possible that this was simply a stylistic choice made in an effort to set himself apart from his predecessors. The other prominent theory is that Akhenaten was actually severely ill and used his physical deformities as part of his divine persona. Common diseases associated with Akhenaten’s physical appearance include Marfan’s and Frohlich’s Syndrome, both of which could explain his unique depictions. Although, this fails to explain the depiction of the family as all having the same deformity, considering they would not have shared his condition.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: As Na’aman, Akhnaton had been a leper.

Not sure if this helps, at least in part, to explain his unique appearance.

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

What is Akhenaten’s legacy?

 

Unfortunately for Akhenaten, none of what he had put in place during his reign would survive his death. Akhenaten’s successors, the relatively unknown Smenkhkare and more infamous Tutankhamun, would almost immediately begin the reversal of all of Akhenaten’s reforms.

 

The city of Amarna quickly lost its status as the capital of Egypt and was abandoned shortly after.

 

Finally, there is no evidence for the survival of Akhenaten’s sun cult in any way. In fact, Tutankhamun not only reopened the old temples but also followed in his predecessor’s footsteps in an ironic way, a name change. Tutankhamun was originally born as Tutankhaten but changed his name early in his reign to reflect his association with the god Amun, and the fall of the Aten from Pharaonic favor. 

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: I tend to think – an idea not yet properly developed – that Smenkhkare, then Tutankhamun, reigned concurrently with Akhnaton, and as his deputy pharaohs.

 

Austin Crouch continues:

 

Later rulers would go further still by labeling Akhenaten a “heretic” and working to have his memory erased entirely. This effort included the destruction of most, if not all, of his temples and projects and having not only his name, but those of his immediate successors, struck from the record books. This destruction of memory was so effective that Egyptologists had no knowledge of Akhenaten or the Amarna Period until the early 19th century; meaning that Akhenaten and his upheaval went undiscovered and forgotten for nearly 4,000 years. Quite frankly, we are not supposed to know Akhenaten ever lived at all.

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, there are few figures throughout history, who have inspired as much controversy and conjecture as Akhenaten. Unfortunately for modern scholars, with so much of Akhenaten’s life being shrouded in mystery as a result of the assaults on his memory, we will never truly know who this fascinating man was or what exactly he was trying to accomplish. However, one thing is for certain, whether he was a prophet of a monotheistic deity or a tyrannical politician fighting to survive a changing Egypt, Akhenaten’s legacy is firmly cemented, despite the significant efforts of his detractors.

….

 

For more, see my (Damien Mackey’s) article:

 

Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton

 

(4) Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton (4) Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton