The Phantom Time hypothesis for the 7th to 10th centuries


Active Member
According to a book by Emmet Scott, the Catholic Church in collaboration with the Persian/Islamic world, under Otto III, introduced a new AD calendar system and then created 300 years of fake history that never existed then had a team work frantically to forge medieval documents in support of the phantom existence of a dynasty of Carolingian kings - as well as Mohammed, many of the Islamic caliphs and other kings of Europe - that came before the Ottonians. Archaeologists find 10th century layers directly above 7th century layers. Here is a reconstruction of the 7th Century - after the removal of 300 years of "Phantom time" and fake ruling kings between the 7th and 10th centuries - allowing for adjustments of attested kings that are known to have left their historical mark. Many of the fake king lists (both European and Middle Eastern) were based on prior existing kings whose names and events were used as "types" for the fakes!




Active Member
This other guy goes further to say that the Huns wiped out Diocletian's Tetrarchy who subsequently resorted to gardening activities(!), and then Atilla the Hun's 2 sons took the Imperial throne and ruled both sides of the Western and Eastern Roman empire under the tutelage of Constantine. He reconstructed this information based on the Hun chronicles together with the information about the fake king Charlemagne who was based on a "type" of Constantine and Attila's elder son. In Illig's book the front cover shows Charlemagne being crowned king with the Hungarian crown. This guy's theory is also in accordance with Illig/Emmet Scott, and he even goes further as to say that the Anglo-Saxon invasian of England was carried out by the western arm of the Hunnic empire.

From Jerry Russell "Check out Toth Gyula, who claims that Charlemagne was not fictional, but rather he was the son of Atilla the Hun. (Aladar = Childeric = Charlemagne.) Also, Mohammed was Bishop Arius, the heretic who claimed at Constantine's Nicene Conference Jesus was human. Oh, by the way, Charlemagne was also the same as Constantine."


Active Member
Scott doesn't agree with all of Korth's data, but some of these entries may be sufficient to demonstrate the hypothesis, and the same thing is said to happen with the Islamic kings:



But the main arguments for this theory comes from lack of archaeology.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Good thread addition Gilius. Perhaps we should have a new thread subcategory for Chronological Revisionism (Jerry)? In any case, there seems to be a school of researchers working on that period, including Fomenko.

Right now I am looking at the impressive (to say the least) claim of Immanuel Velikovsky (in his Ages in Chaos, 1952) that the beginning of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty (Ahmose I) should be aligned in time with the biblical king Saul, a chronological displacement of approximately 600 years. The narrative parallels between the biblical Kings/Chronicles, the so-called Amarna Letters, and various contemporaneous inscriptions from surrounding areas are massive beyond anything that I have seen before.

Unfortunately, for two reasons IMHO, Velikovsky ran into a buzzsaw. First he chose to come out with a book, Worlds in Collision, that attempted to throw the planetary sciences into complete upheaval based upon his interpretations of the bible and other mythology. For instance, Venus was formed by being burped out of Jupiter, thus causing various catastrophes on Earth. This requires other physics to be in play than is accepted in the mainstream. A few years later he came out with Ages in Chaos which at first got some impressive high level reviews, that is, IMHO until the veiled PTB realized that Velikovsky unwittingly revealed who the Abrahamic God really is.

I had inherited most of Velikovsky's books about ten years ago, but had only really been familiar with the planetary business from his first book, and therefore put reading them down lower on my priority list. Perhaps a mistake, but reading Ages in Chaos, in the midst of our OT analysis makes Velikovsky's unwitting(?) revelation really stand out. Velikovsky next came out with a related book which I have just started reading, Akhenaton and Oedipus, where he claims that the former was the inspiration for the latter and that both the real and fictional narratives cast revealing light on each other.

I'm soon going to post some amazing excerpts from Ages in Chaos with some commentary to put them in a Postflavian context. This is going to make a substantial addition to the OT analysis, and we partially have member 'mika' to thank for it.

In any case, I think you would really enjoy examining the massive parallels, real history as witnessed by the Amarna Letters, where one can clearly see just who the Judean and Israelite kings knew their god really was (Josephus occasionally enters the fray with his commentaries in his Antiquities). This is the motive for somebody (Manetho or his predecessors) adding 600 years of fake Egyptian history. Later works of Velikovsky attempt to collapse history even more down to the time of Alexander the Great.


Active Member
Sounds good Richard! I look forward to seeing an excerpt on this. Have you read Ralph Ellis' books? His is the best hypothesis I've come across that the Patriarchs were the Hyksos kings of northern Egypt - and he does a post-Hyksos on them as well and I seem to recall he even discusses the Amarna letters too. I know we did touch on Ralph Ellis in another topic. I haven't read all his books so I am not sure how far he gets towards the Babylonian exile - but recently it occurred to me that there might be some Iranian propaganda existing in the bible - so I was wondering what their part was in this. Also, I heard there's typology between different OT books, which I would like to learn more about (not sure if you or Ralph are aware of that?) . It seems typology is a major theme with the oligarchs throughout the ages.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Yes, I have most all of Ellis's books, except for maybe some of his latest. I generally like them very much.

Velikovsky (hereafter termed 'IV') made a unique (as far as I know) identification of the Hyksos with the biblical Amalekites (and related Midianites) based upon the biblical account of the escaping 'Hebrews' having an unpleasant confrontation with the Amalekites coming up out of Arabia as soon as the 'Hebrews' entered the Sinai. The Amalekites were on their way into Egypt to take advantage of the political chaos that IV relates to that described in the Ipuwer Papyrus - caused by a sequence of calamities. The latter of which IV equates to the list of plagues in the Exodus account. As you know, Ellis equated these events with the Tempest Stele and the Thera eruption. And Ellis broke the biblical exodus into two different events that were later grafted together.

Interestingly, IV relates that Arabic sources seem to indicate that the Amalekite power base was in Mecca (by an older name) and that the Midianites were really from Medina. Sound familiar? The Amalekites were on the move because of related 'natural' calamities. IV related that Jewish cultural antipathy against the Amalekites is so strong even today that a Jewish mother will frighten their child with imagery of an 'Amalekite', not such as an Egyptian.

IV then goes on to relate an Egyptian text describing Ahmose I's defeat of the Hyksos at Avaris in rather unusual terms that imply that another 'foreign' force was allied with Ahmose in order to defeat the Hyksos / Amalekites. IV then goes on to detail the account of Saul in a massive defeat of the Amalekites where by closely examining the Hebrew term used, then both accounts describe their respective sieges of the cities as taking place in the dry stream bed adjacent to the city. The branch of the Nile adjacent to Avaris was seasonal, and the closet river to the Judeans was this same eastern branch of the Nile. After this begins a long period of close association between Egypt and the entire Levant including the Judeans and the northern Israelite / Samarians. But this association has been contextually scrubbed, until IV's analysis clearly exposed it. And now even more hidden dots can be connected from this 'well-umination' (as opposed to the evil 'ill-umination').


Active Member
That Age of Chaos sounds like quite an outdated read at 1952! So I guess his theory isn't compatible with Ralph Ellis since the identity of the Hyksos is with the Amalekites instead of the Patriarchs? Nevertheless, an investigation into the evidence behind that theory sounds worthwhile, but I personally got more pressing things to write off my ToDo list first: I need to finish off my research into the Flavian Signature of the Gospels and I need to settle this 300 year mystery - and everything rests with the Anglo-Saxons of my home turf! Incidentally, I was reading that Constantine's commanders that accompanied him to York were both barbarian generals. About 70 years later another British sources names more "barbarians" as in positions of power.

Fomenko's theories look totally crazy, so not sure if anything of value can be gleaned from his work.

Anyway, I'll have a read of the first instalment for now then it's back to Anglo-Saxon studies.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Everything rests with the Anglo-Saxons? What, since the German Hanovers? I think you're forgetting some other people that might say different.

I only mention Fomenko because he seems to cover most all periods, and now needs to be reviewed again. Mr. Ellis had a little grey man popping up into the picture at one point, but hey the Vatican is preparing the way for Space Jesus to return, so what do I know?

Personally, I believe the weight of any such parallel analysis goes with the range, breadth, and intimate detail of the parallels, you have not read Mr. Velikovsky's dated material. If 'they' say a picture is worth a thousand words then the wall murals of Hatshepsut and Thutmose I, by themselves trump Ellis's or anybody else's identifications. Hatshepsut's remarkable Lego boat design has been recently recreated and successfully sailed. This was one aspect that Velikovsky could not account for in the visit of the Queen of Sheba, but now one can see how such an aspect (portaging overland) was handled, because these vessels were expressly designed for such.

But don't worry, until now I dismissed Velikovsky for similar reasons as you.

But now that you mention it, perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe Ellis identified the Patriarchs as non-Hyksos pharaohs, with the Pre-Diluvian lineage being Mesopotamian royals. Whatever the case, and whatever critics of Velikovsky say, such as his scheme creating problems with Egyptian chronology, I think he would say: Duh. I will next excerpt his concluding summary in which he lists the numerous parallel aspects that one needs to discount in order to dismiss his approach.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Giles, the linked article is by Gunnar Heinsohn, who is an even more extreme chronological revisionist for the medieval period than Illig & Scott. His conclusion is that the Carolingian coins are genuine, but that they are contemporary with Roman artifacts conventionally dated from the 1st to 3rd centuries. He thinks that we need to cut not 300 years, but 700 years out of the conventional chronology of the first millennium AD.


Active Member
It seems there's been at least 6 different Carolus coins, supposedly for Charlemagne, found in the UK:



Active Member
Giles, the linked article is by Gunnar Heinsohn, who is an even more extreme chronological revisionist for the medieval period than Illig & Scott. His conclusion is that the Carolingian coins are genuine, but that they are contemporary with Roman artifacts conventionally dated from the 1st to 3rd centuries. He thinks that we need to cut not 300 years, but 700 years out of the conventional chronology of the first millennium AD.
Heinsohn believes that Diocletian was ruling outside the empire during the time of Augustus, but there's an inscription recovered from Birdoswald on Hadrian's Wall from 100+ years later mentioning Diocletian:"building+and+the+bathhouse,+under+the+direction+of+flavius"&source=bl&ots=9ovkjKQeW0&sig=zs5ikaGKfyWoC7E48rPSTQ47hvE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYi9fXlorKAhXIiywKHUHXCxMQ6AEIITAA#v=onepage&q="building and the bathhouse, under the direction of flavius"&f=false


Diocletian is quite central to his theory, so I am not sure what to make of it now.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
This is a very common experience: that when you start exploring all the implications of one or another of the various revised chronologies that have been proposed, contradictory data emerges. So maybe this particular inscription is fake, or it was inscribed onto a rock that was later moved into this wall from somewhere else, or maybe Hadrian's Wall wasn't really built by Hadrian, or maybe Hadrian also needs to be re-dated to the time of Augustus, or maybe there's some other explanation that doesn't immediately come to mind.

Or maybe Heinsohn's theory is wrong, either partially or completely.


Active Member
The scholarship for Roman Britain is very sound compared to other provinces - Britain wasn't even invaded properly until 43 AD. The evidence would really be stacked up against Diocletian being from such an early period. Heinsohn fixes Hadrian to the conventional era. I would say his theory is at least partially wrong. There may not be many types of sources for Saxon or the early middle ages, but Roman Britain is built up on hard evidence, like inscriptions and connections between different military units, etc. He believes the Saxons were housed in Roman architecture in Britain - but the evidence in larger context doesn't really support that. We still need to consider at least a 300 year gap in the chronology, i.e Illig's original theory.
Pardon my ignorance here, but on the grounds that the only stupid question is the question you don't ask: are these theorists proposing an actual fudging of the passage of time as displayed on calendars as we have come to know it? E.g., from the date we have come to know as 1 CE (AD), we would need to subtract some hundreds of years so that a smaller number of years has actually elapsed, say 1,800 years instead of 2,100? If so, would these claims not be provable/falsifiable by means other than stratigraphy and archaeology? Would not astronomers be able to prove or falsify such claims?

Also, I recall reading long ago that some of the British ruins said to be Roman actually pre-dated the Roman invasion. I'll see if I can find a source on that. Meanwhile, comments would be appreciated.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hi Mike,

Imagine that you have a chart with a timeline showing history as we know it, and then fold the chart so that (for example) the year 600 AD shows next to the year 900 AD. The concept is that the events of the year 900 AD happened immediately the next year after those shown on the year 600 AD on the conventional timeline. Everything on the chart between those years is either fictional, or happened at some other time visible on the unfolded part of the chart. In other words, the year known conventionally as 600 AD, actually happened in 899 AD (in terms of an absolute calendar counting backwards from now.)

Conventional historians, astronomers, and other scientists do claim to be able to prove that the conventional chronology of the ancient world is correct, on multiple grounds. Not only astronomy, but also dendrochronology, ice cores correlated to dates of known volcanic eruptions, and radiocarbon dating. The chronological revisionists argue that all of this confirmation is circular reasoning based on spurious inputs; and there's not that much serious debate, because the conventional academics think the revisionists are a bunch of cranks.


Active Member
This exhibition was quite useful to sum up what's "out there" regarding Anglo-Saxon England:

To summarise:
*A whole bunch of books that all look the same and with similar illustrations depicting the gospels - nothing secular except Gildas and Bede and one or two minor sources.
*One or two depictions of the eagle, ala 1st reich
*Less than 20 objects with runes vs. old English vs. Latin (some "rosetta stone" like objects with two languages) - interesting research topic
*Coins, including the Offa one with Arabic - on display right now at this exhibition!
*References to "the earth is not flat" by Bede haha!
*One king being crowned by the pope - perhaps with a caliph or viking in the picture (I need to check that again as I could be mistaken)
*Charters all starting with a cross in the top-left

Firstly, the books have no dates attached to them, and the charters are probably all fake. Only certain kings had coins, starting from Eadbald I think.

It all looks very fishy ala Emmet Scott:

I have a list of Saxon kings in a spreadsheet and plan to try to match up coins.

Hengest unknown
Horsa unknown
Oisc unknown
Octa 512/516-534/540
Eormenric 534/540-c.590
Æðelberht I c.590 - 24 February 616 (Bede)
Eadbald February 616 to 20 January 640 (Bede)
Æðelwald unknown
Eorcenberht January 640 to 14 July 664 (Bede)
Eormenred unknown
Ecgberht I July 664 to 4 July 673 (Bede)
Hlothhere acceded 674 or 675,died 685
Eadric 685 to 686 (Bede)
Mul killed 687
Swæfheard acceded 687 or 688,still reigning 692
Swæfberht fl. 689
Oswine fl. 689 to 690
Wihtred acceded c. 693 (Malmesbury 1.15),died 23 April 725
Alric succeeded 725
Eadberht I 725 to 748
Æðelberht II 725 to 762
Eardwulf unknown
Eadberht II fl. 762
Sigered fl. 762
Eanmund unknown
Heaberht fl. 764 to 765
Ecgberht II fl. 765 to 779
Ealhmund fl. 784
Eadberht III Præn 796 to 798, deposed
Cuðred acceded 797 or 798,died 807
Cœnwulf fl. 809
Ceolwulf fl. 822 to 823
Baldred deposed in 825
Ecgberht III 825 to 839
Æðelwulf 825 to 858
Æðelstan I fl. 839 to 851
Æðelberht III fl. 855 to 866
Æðelred I 866 to 871

Icel c. 527 (or c. 515)–?
Cnebba ?
Cynewald ?
Creoda c. 584–c. 593
Pybba c. 593–c. 606
Cearl c. 606–c. 626
Penda c. 626–655
Eowa c. 635–642
Peada c. 653–656
Oswiu of Northumbria 655–658
Wulfhere 658–675
Æthelred I 675–704
Cœnred 704–709
Ceolred 709–716
Ceolwald 716
Æthelbald 716–757
Beornred 757
Offa 757–796
Ecgfrith 787–796
Cœnwulf 796–821
Cynehelm c. 798–812
Ceolwulf I 821–823
Beornwulf 823–826
Ludeca 826–827
Wiglaf (1st reign) 827–829
Ecgberht of Wessex 829–830
Wiglaf (2nd reign) 830–839
Wigmund c. 839–c. 840
Wigstan 840
Ælfflæd (Queen) 840
Beorhtwulf 840–852
Burgred 852–874
Ceolwulf II 874–879 or c. 883
Æthelred II (Lord) c. 883–911
Æthelflæd (Lady) 911–918
Ælfwynn (Lady) 918
Æthelstan 924
Eadgar 957–959
Ælfhere 957–983
Ælfric Cild 983–985
Wulfric Spot ?–1004
Eadric Streona 1007–1017
Leofwine 1017–1023/32
Leofric 1023/32–1057
Ælfgar 1057–1062
Eadwine 1062–1071

fl.500 Esa (Oesa)
fl c. 520 Eoppa
547 to 559 Ida
559 to 560 Glappa (Clappa)
560 to 568 Adda
568 to 572 Æthelric
572 to 579 Theodric (Deoric)
579 to 585 Frithuwald (Frithewlf)
585 to 593 Hussa
593 to 616 Æthelfrith
616 to 12/14 October 632 Edwin
late 632 to 633 Eanfrith
634 to 5 August 642 Oswald
late 642 to 654 Oswiu
559/560 to 589 Ælla (Aelli)
589/599 to 604 Æthelric (Aedilric)
593/604? to 616 Æthelfrith
616 to 12/14 October 632 Edwin
late 633 to summer 634 Osric
633 to 5 August 642 Oswald
642 to 644 Oswiu
644 to 651 Oswine
summer 651 to late 654 or 655 Æthelwold
654 to 15 August 670 Oswiu
656 to 664 Alchfrith
670 to 679 Ælfwine
654 to 15 February 670 Oswiu
February 670 to 20 May 685 Ecgfrith
May 685 to 14 December 704 Aldfrith (Ealdfrith, Aldfrid)
late 704 to early 705 Eadwulf
705 to 716 Osred I
716 to 718 Coenred
718 to 29 May 729 Osric
729 to 731 Ceolwulf
731 to 737/8 Ceolwulf
737 to 758 Eadberht
758 to 759 Oswulf (Osulf)
759 to 765 Æthelwald Moll
765 to 774 Alhred
774 to 779 Æthelred I
779 to 23 September 788 Ælfwald I
788 to 790 Osred II
790 to 18 April 796 Æthelred I
796 Osbald
14 May 796 to 806/8 Eardwulf
806/8 to 808/10 Ælfwald II (Elfwald II)
808 to 810 Eardwulf
810 to 841 Eanred
840/1 to 844 Æthelred II
844 Rædwulf (Redwulf)
844 to c. 848/9 Æthelred II
c. 848/9 to 862/3 Osberht (Osbert)
862/3/7 to 23 March 867 Ælle II
867 to 21 March 867 Osberht (Osbert)
867 to 872 Ecgberht I
872 to 876 Ricsige
876 to 877 Halfdan Ragnarsson
877 to 883 Interregnum
c. 883 to 895 Guðroðr
late 9th century/early 10th century[1]:79 Sigfroðr
late 9th century/early 10th century[1]:79 Knútr
fl. c. 900—902[1]:79 Æthelwold
c.902-910[1]:87 Hálfdan and Eowils
914 (or before) to 921[2]:144—8 Ragnall
921 to 927[2]:148—51 Sigtrygg
927 Gofraid ua Ímair
927 to 939 [2]:151,74 Æthelstan of Wessex
939 to 941[2]:174,81 Olaf Guthfrithson
941 to 943 or 944[2]:181—2 Amlaíb Cuarán
943 to 944 (with Amlaíb Cuarán?)[2]:182 Ragnall Guthfrithson
roughly 944 to 946[2]:182,86 Eadmund of Wessex
c. 947 to 948[2]:186—8 Eric
949 to 952[2]:186,88 Amlaíb Cuarán (again)
952 to 954[2]:188—90 Eric (again)
from 954[2]:190 Eadred of Wessex

519 to 534 Cerdic
534 to 560 Cynric
560 to 591 Ceawlin
591 to 597 Ceol
597 to 611 Ceolwulf
611 to 643 Cynegils
c. 626 to 636 Cwichelm
643 to 645 Cenwalh
645 to 648 Penda
648 to 674 Cenwalh
672 to 674 Seaxburh
674 Cenfus
674 to 676 Æscwine
676 to 685 Centwine
685 to 688 Caedwalla
688 to 726 Ine
726 to 740 Æthelheard
740 to 756 Cuthred
756 to 757 Sigeberht
757 to 786 Cynewulf
786 to 802 Beorhtric
802 to 839 Egbert
839 to 858 Æthelwulf
858 to 860 Æthelbald
860 to 865 Æthelberht
865 to 871 Æthelred
871 to 899 Alfred the Great
899 to 924 Edward the Elder
924 Ælfweard?
924 to 927 Æthelstan

527 to 587 Aescwine
587 to ante 604 Sledda
ante 604 to 616/7 Saebert
616/7 to 617 Sexred
616/7 to 617 Saeward
617 to ante c.653 Sigeberht the Little
c.653 to 660 Sigeberht the Good
660 to 664 Swithelm
664 to 683 Sighere
664 to c.694 Sebbi
c.694 to c.709 Sigeheard
c.695 to ante c.709 Swaefred(Swaebheard)
709 Offa
c.709 to 746 Saelred(Swebert)
c.715 to 738 Swaefbert
746 to 758 Swithred
758 to 798 Sigeric
798 to 812, 812-825 Sigered

477 to 514 Ælle of Sussex
514 to 567 Cissa of Sussex
fl. c. 660 to c.685 Æðelwealh
fl. c. 683? Eadwulf
fl. c. 683 to c.685? Ecgwald
fl.685 Berhthun
fl.685 Andhun
fl.692 to 717 Noðhelm (Nunna)
fl.692 to c.700 Watt
fl. c.700 Bryni
fl. c.710 ?Osric
fl.717 Æðelstan
fl. c.740 Æðelberht
fl.760 to 772 Osmund
fl.772 Oswald
fl. c.765 to 772 Oslac
fl. c.765 to 772 Ælfwald
died 982 Eadwine

East Anglia
Unknown. Wehha
571 (from unknown annal).[6] Wuffa
578 (from unknown annal).[6] Tytila
Acceded around 616,[9] died before 627.[10] Rædwald
Died 627 or 628.[10] Eorpwald
c. 627 to c. 630.[10] Ricberht
Acceded c. 630.[10] Sigeberht
Acceded c. 630 (ruled jointly with Sigeberht until c. 634). Ecgric
early 640s[9] to c. 653.[10] Anna
c. 653[10] to 655.[9] Æthelhere
655[10] to 663.[10] Æthelwold
663[10] to 713.[10] Ealdwulf
713[10] to 749.[10] Ælfwald
Ruling in 749.[9] Beonna, Alberht and possibly Hun
Unknown. Æthelred I
?779[10] to 794.[10] Æthelberht II
c. 796[22] to c. 800.[22] Eadwald
Mercia Coenwulf
Mercia Ceolwulf
Mercia Beornwulf
827[22] to 845.[9] Æthelstan
c.845[9] to 855.[9] Æthelweard
855[10] to 869.[9] Edmund (Eadmund)
c.875.[9] Oswald
c.875.[9] Æthelred II
c. 879[9] to 890.[29] Guthrum
Ruled until 902.[9] Eohric
902.[9] Æthelwold
902 to 918. Guthrum II

mid-7th century Eanhere
mid-7th century Eanfrith
active 670s Osric
active 690s Oshere
active 709 Æthelheard
active 709 Æthelweard
active 736 Æthelric
active 750s Eanberht
active 750s – 779 Uhtred
active 750s – 778 Ealdred
c. 796-802 Æthelmund
fl. 804 ?Æthelric
d.c.1023 Leofwine
d.1056 Odda
Last edited: