• On Monday (April, 26) the site will be down for maintanance for around 12 hours, starting at 11:00 pm UTC as we complete the sh.org archive with the missing threads. 1300 new or upgraded threads will be added, and there will be complete reply archives for 2500 threads, adding around 20,000 replies.

SH Archive Faux marble, Alexander the Great, Dhul-Qarnayn, Ivan the Terrible and our Lost History

SH.org OP Username
SH.org OP Date
2018-07-07 04:52:14
SH.org Reaction Score
SH.org Reply Count

KD Archive

Not actually KorbenDallas
Trusted Member
Sep 22, 2020
Reaction score
Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam was an Egyptian Muslim historian who wrote a work generally known as The Conquest of Egypt and North Africa and Spain. This work is considered one of the earliest Arabic Islamic histories to have survived to the present day.

no image exists
803 A.D - 871 A.D
ʿAbd ar-Raḥman ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam was, strictly speaking, a traditionist rather than a pure historian. He was interested mainly in historical incidents which illustrated early Muslim Arab customs which he could use to teach Islamic law. His sources were books compiled by very early traditionists and now lost, and oral sources such as his own father. His work is an almost invaluable source as arguably the earliest Arab account of the Islamic conquests of the countries it deals with. However, it was written some 200 years after the events it describes, and therefore largely mixes facts with later legends.

ibn_abd_al-hakam The Conquest of Egypt and North Africa and Spain.png

The above paragraph is how our science discredits unacceptable historical accounts contradicting their dogmatic version. Isn’t it the exact same way our contemporary history science is working? Or those 19th century cornerstone works on Ancient Rome and the Medieval were put together by the actual witnesses of the described events? Yet, our official scientists will discredit any historical source to meet their agenda. This is how we got duped in first place, ladies and gentlemen.
> Good thing Poggio Bracciolini did not know every single language in the world, otherwise this source could be compromised as well.

Alexandria was founded around a small, ancient Egyptian town c. 332 BC by Alexander the Great. It became an important center of Hellenistic civilization and remained the capital of Ptolemaic (Greek) Egypt and Roman and Byzantine Egypt for almost 1000 years, until the Muslim conquest of Egypt in AD 641, when a new capital was founded at Fustat (later absorbed into Cairo).

alexandria_old_3.jpg alexandria_old_2.jpg alexandria_old_1.jpg alexandria_old_5.PNG
alexandria_old_4.jpg alexandria_old.jpg The_Serapeum_of_Alexandria.jpg The_Serapeum_of_Alexandria_1.jpg

The Conquest of Egypt and North Africa and Spain
by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (803 A.D. - 871 A.D.)
On the building of Alexandria
There are five excerpts which I would like to point out:
  • ‘Abdallāh ibn Tarīf al-Hamdānī says that, in previous times, Alexandria had seven forts with seven ditches. Khālid and Abu Hamzah relate that when Dhūl-Qarnayn built Alexandria, he paved the ground and walls with white marble. The city’s inhabitants wore black and red clothes, whereas before that, the monks would wear black for the dazzling whiteness of the marble. In fact, such was this marble’s brilliance, they didn't need to light street lamps at night. When the moon shone, the man sewing in the evening, could, by its light on the white marble, thread a needle.
  • According to some of the sheikhs, Alexandria was under construction for three hundred years, inhabited for three hundred years, and lay in waste for three hundred years.
  • For the first seventy years, nobody entered unless they had tied a black rag over the eyes – such was the brightness of the marble tiles and plaster. And during these same 70 years, nobody ever lit a lamp. Al-Atāf ibn Khālid tells us that Alexandria was white - lit by day and night - and that nobody left their homes after dark . This was because if anyone did, he would be kidnapped.
  • Uthmān ibn Atā tells us that his father said that the marble had the constituency of dough from early morning to noon. At noon, however, it became hard.
  • He also says, along with other historians, that the pyramids were built in the time of Shaddād ibn Ād, though I have not learnt anything else about the pyramids from Egypt’s scholars, or at least anything of any worth.
Short summary of the above:
  • 1. Dhul-Qarnayn built Alexandria. (side note: Muslim and other commentators have identified Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander the Great)
  • 2. Three bizarre 300-year cycles of the city of Alexandria
  • 3. Marble had the constituency of dough
  • 4. Pyramids were built in the time of Shaddād ibn Ād
Based on the above "short summary", there are a few questions to ask, I believe.
  • 2. What would be the reason for those 300-year cycles?
  • 3. Who was this Shaddād ibn ‘Ād, during whose time the pyramids were built? When did he live?
While the above two questions are very interesting, they are above my head right now. Quick googling of the name Shaddād ibn ‘Ād produced produced four candidates.
Out of the four, only Antarah ibn Shaddad the poet fits the time frame. He flourished in 580 A.D., which is before Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam. The guy was also a warrior. He was a son of an Arabian warrior and enslaved Ethiopian princess who gained fame and freedom due to his intellect, poetry, and courage in battle: 6-7th c. A.D. Anyways, I obviously do not know if it was him mentioned by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, but here is what he looked like.

This leaves us with two remaining "short summary" points
  • 3. What is going on with this ancient "constituency of dough" soft marble, which eventually becomes hard?
  • 1. What is up with Alexandria being built by Dhul-Qarnayn, who was identified with Alexander the Great by Muslim and "other scholars".
3. "constituency of dough" marble
Meet Lorenzo Bernini. He was an Italian sculptor and architect. While a major figure in the world of architecture, he was, also and even more prominently, the leading sculptor of his age, credited with creating the Baroque style of sculpture.


This is probably where I could say, "Meet your faux marble antique statues, Ladies, and Gentlemen".

  • Filippo Baldinucci (1624-1697) said the following, "Bernini liked to boast that in his hands marble could become as impressionable as wax and as soft as dough." Bernini's marble does indeed seem to mutate into other substances: fibrous rope; brilliant steel; locks of hair.
  • Bernini’s son Domenico, surely recording his father’s own analogies, also singled out the greatest prize of the artist’s chisel as his victory over the hardness of marble, rendering it “pliable as wax…. obedient to the human hand as if made of dough - pasta.”
Of course our scientists deny that the meaning of the above had any literal context. We are lead to believe that it's all just an allegory. I personally think that Bernini (just like quite a few before [ancient Alexandria], and quite a few after) figured out how to make faux marble.

Well, let us move on from the 1600s to this 19th century related Wikipedia article called, "Marbelizing". In this article we read the following:
  • Marbleizing or faux marbling is the preparation and finishing of a surface to imitate the appearance of polished marble.
  • Marble dust is combined with cement or synthetic resins to make reconstituted or cultured marble.
  • The sophistication of the techniques are such that visitors are frequently unable to distinguish between false and real marble in many churches, palaces and public buildings in Europe. The techniques were perfected by the 17th century and have been used in all styles of construction well into the 20th century.
  • Scagliola is a technique for producing stucco columns, sculptures and other architectural elements that resemble inlays in marble and semi-precious stones. The Scagliola technique came into fashion in 17th-century Tuscany as an effective substitute for costly marble inlays, the pietra dura works created for the Medici family in Florence.
Marble summary: Our dogmatic scientists want us to believe that if the bird walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it's a set of x-ray binoculars. Because this is exactly what we will need to see through the clouds of lies tainting our education. Authors of the past talk about "pliable marble" in the 8th, 17th and 19th centuries. Pretty sure some additional digging would produce scores of extra evidence.


We are led to believe that "dumb and stupid" ancients used sleds, and carriages to transport super heavy stones from hundreds of miles away. Yet, Ancient Romans (though I do not think there was anything Empire, or Republic related in Rome) use Roman Concrete left and right. If you read this wikipedia article, you will see that their concrete appears to be superior to ours. Time frame? Who knows, but wiki says, "It is uncertain when Roman concrete was developed, but it was clearly in widespread and customary use from about 150 BC; some scholars believe it was developed a century before that." Phantom "scholars" can believe in whatever. They clearly do not know but choose to BS everyone. It could be a century, it could be 10,000 years, or it could be a million years. They do not know.

And if you do not think that Roman Concrete was better than ours, consider that the Pantheon dome is the world's largest and oldest unreinforced concrete dome. Still up there, right? Built 113–125 A. D.

Rome-Pantheon.jpg Pantheon_dome.jpg

How do you think "Ancient Egyptians" built them Pyramids?

ancient_egypt_concrete_use_1.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_use_2.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_5.png ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_3.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_2.jpg ancient_egypt_concrete_pouring_1.jpg

1. Alexander the Great a.k.a. Dhul Qarnayn
This part of the riddle was a bit trickier. There are plenty of interesting material out there pertaining to why some consider Dhul-Qarnayn and Alexander the Great to be one and the same. Below are a few links if you want to educate yourself:
Bottom line, there are hundreds, if not thousands of different articles, discussions, comparisons etc. And what they all say does not really matter. The dogmatic history made up its opinion.
  • Alexander the Great is a real historical individual.
  • Dhul-Qarnayn appears in Surah 18 verses 83-101 of the Quran as a figure empowered by Allah to erect a wall between mankind and Gog and Magog, the representation of chaos.
You make your own conclusion on the above two bullets. What we do know, is that we have two weird facts pertaining to both gentlemen.

Fact 1
  • Alexander the Great built the Gates of Alexander in the Caucasus to keep the uncivilized barbarians of the north (typically associated with Gog and Magog) from invading the land to the south.
  • Dhul-Qarnayn built the iron wall of Dhul-Qarnayn. A wall that can neither be scaled nor pierced, barring the way between two cliffs. This will keep out Yajuj and Majuj until the last days, when they are let loose. (Yajuj and Majuj are the Arabic names for Gog and Magog.)
A little detail to add is this. According to a legend current in Jewish circles around the early first century CE, the Scythians are identified with Gog and Magog. The basic elements of the legend are found in Flavius Josephus and letters of Saint Jerome. From myself can add that Scythians appear to dissolve within the Tartarian Empire.

tartaria_scythia.png tartaria_scythia_1.jpg

Fact 2
No Image Found

Silver tetradrachmon(ancient Greek coin) issued in the name of Alexander the Great, depicting Alexander with the horns of Ammon-Ra(242/241 BC, posthumous issue). Displayed at the British Museum.
alexander_te_great.jpg horns_alexander_the_great.png

And as I was looking through all this stuff I stumbled upon The Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible.

The Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible

The Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible is the largest compilation of historical information ever assembled in medieval Russia. It covers the period from the creation of the world to the year 1567. The set of manuscripts was commissioned by Ivan the Terrible specifically for his royal library. The literal meaning of the Russian title is "face chronicle," alluding to the numerous hand-painted miniatures. The compilation consists of 10 volumes, containing about 10 thousand sheets of rag paper. It is illustrated with more than 16 thousand miniatures.

There I found this image of Alexander the Great praying to Ammon. Yup, the guy with horns in the middle is Ammon, the lady next to Ammon is Olympias (Alexander's mother), and the bent over gentleman on the right is Alexander the Great. (beer paid for the translation. Kudos goes to my neighbor)


A little googling produced this, "Alexander advanced on Egypt in later 332 BC, where he was regarded as a liberator. He was pronounced son of the deity Amun at the Oracle of Siwa Oasis in the Libyan desert. Henceforth, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father, and after his death, currency depicted him adorned with the horns of a ram as a symbol of his divinity." And Zeus-Ammon link took me to the page of regular Zeus. But, allegedly, Zeus Ammon is supposed to look like this.

And here is where I understood that this "double horn" thing can not be understood due to the lack of pertinent information. I wonder if “The Burning of Heretical Books” had anything to do with this. "In his recent article, University of Oxford historian Alexander Murray examines several questions about the topic. He notes there are over 200 incidences of book burning in the Middle Ages. “There are one or two Carolingian cases,” Murray writes, “a few more in the Gregorian reform and a few more in the ‘twelfth-century renaissance’. It is around 1200 that the pace quickens, and from then on, scarcely a decade passes without a book-burning, the pace rising gradually, but with exceptional spurts between 1232 and 1319 when hitherto immune Jewish books were burned by the cartload." - source. I wonder what books did they really burn, and how many of those ended up in the secrets vaults of Vatican?

And considering that the "two horn" story does not end there, but rather continues with individuals like Oghuz Khagan, Cyrus the Great and a whole bunch of other ones, it is simply too confusing. Appears both Alexander and Dhul-Qarnayn are credited with building Alexandria. In general, it sounds like there was a herd of horned humanoids running around building cities, and starting wars.

* * * * *

KD Summary: My head hurts, I will update this summary later.
Note: This OP was recovered from the Wayback Archive.


Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Sep 25, 2020
Reaction score
Another possible example of faux marble, from the port city of Rome. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Ostia-mainbaths01.jpg

"The ancient Roman city of Ostia was in antiquity situated at the mouth of the river Tiber, some 30 kilometres to the west of Rome. The shoreline moved seawards, due to silting, from the Middle Ages until the 19th century. Therefore Ostia is today still lying next to the Tiber, but at a distance of some three kilometers from the beach." Ostia - Introduction

The columns look like solid marble with a nice swirly pattern. It had to have been applied vertically, after the brick core was completed. The tech may be similar to the geopolymer blocks of the Great Pyramid, since marble is chemically similar to limestone.


Users who are viewing this thread