----- Original Message -----

 

   i had always thought the 'moors' of spain were invaders from morroco.  i read recently that the mauretanians below morroco, were known as 'maurs'.  as happens, when im reading too many sources at once, i forgot where it was seen. 

   it seems there were two tribes of tuareg, all tall, elongated skulls, and the men wearing veils.  they commanded the entire sahara. 

   [they looked to me to be copper-red like native americans, judging from the images in prorok's previous book.   this is exciting news, to place this people in the sahara.  i never suspected it.  i had wondered for a while which dynasty of egypt represented the time of the migration of the atlanteans of 9750bce.  it was the date assigned to akhenaten that misled me so long.  1350 bce seemed too recent i thought.  as far as i have determined, the amenophis dynasty is the only one that displayed racial anomalies, like red skin, or elongated heads.  [conehead]  if someone has evidence to the contrary, i would like to hear it.  thats an incredible amount of error, 8400 years.   could they have been so careless, as to just accept a date already assigned for a dynasty, and then place the son, grandson, where they would fall?   some say there were 3,000 pharaohs thru the ages in egypt.  [cayce]  most consider there is some error in the current list.  the oldest king-list i know of is by the alexandrian manetho, and part of it is lost.  i think the rameses dynasty followed amenophis, yet the reign of rameses the great seems well established.  there is some reason to think that the pharaoh of moses, was a rameses.  most verses in the bible just say 'pharaoh', but i found rameses given once.  this presents a problem, for we cayce students, for he indirectly dated the exodus to circa 5500 bce, over 4,000 years earlier than rameses.  this is the problem of historians in establishing a date for a reign of a king - they counted time in documents, as, 'in the seventh year of the reign of akhenaten'.  no dating can stand on its own.  the amarna letters speak of hordes from the black sea region or anatolia, invading and conquering.  this could have been any time from 10,000 bce to the ottoman turks of 1500 ce.   as i recall, the hittites were related or aligned with the scythians, and wrote in chaldean.  we know the scythians seem to have been in northern mesopotamia in the earliest of times.  the question now arises, are the scythians related to the chaldeans?  if so, we may have an unusual origin of the semitic people from the scythians.  its a fact that the khazzars were jewish tribes, exiled there by the assyrians.   some scholars have them riding with the scythians across western europe before historic times there, and settling in various nations, which they named after their tribe, eg dan named danmark. 

       the constant danger of death from the tuaregs has hindered exploration of the sahara.  the longer expeditions stand less chance of coming back alive.  so we seem to have hurried and spotted exploration, with no serious long-term digs.  prorok did an incredible feat in collecting the thousands of flint tools and weapons from paleo and neo, and even those of giants.  the museum's certainly were repaid for the total cost under $500,000.   they place the tuareg deposit just above the flint neolithic.  the high culture of the tuareg as presented by the relics found by prorok, was circa 400 ce, of queen tin hinan.    we have not found a deposit of a high culture in the sahara, about the time of akhenaten, using the old or the hypothetical new dating.  being responsible for restoring and correcting 8400 years of egyptian history, might award some lasting fame, or the usual 15 minutes.  if we succeed in leading other scholars to investigate this further, you can bet that they will deny any credit to us here, if its proven to be true.  hopefully, there have been more thorough excavations done in the sahara since 1927?  i wonder how dangerous it is today to venture deep into the sahara? 

  

 

Kind regards,
Mike White
http://all-ez.com/yahoo-groups.htm