A Metallurgical Re-evaluation of Dhū al-Qarnayn’s Barrier: From the Alloy Hypothesis to an Fe-Cu Composite Model | ||
| Journal of Interdisciplinary Qur'anic Studies | ||
| دوره 4، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 8، اسفند 2025 اصل مقاله (651.07 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.37264/JIQS.V4I2.9 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Mostafa Jafari* | ||
| Faculty of Chemistry and Petroleum Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The construction of the barrier by Dhū al-Qarnayn, as depicted in Surah al-Kahf (Q. 18:96), involves a unique combination of iron and copper. Traditionally, this process has been interpreted as the formation of a homogenous metallurgical alloy. However, from the perspective of materials science, this “Alloy Hypothesis” faces severe technical challenges, including the extreme melting point of iron and the inherent immiscibility of the iron-copper (Fe-Cu) system. This study employs a multidisciplinary methodology, combining Qur’anic analysis with historical metallurgical data from the Achaemenid era (6th century BCE) as a representative technological baseline. We argue that the barrier was not a product of anachronistic alloying but rather a masterpiece of composite engineering. By introducing a “Composite Model” based on interfacial thermal bonding and capillary infiltration, we demonstrate how ancient engineers could achieve structural unification (radm) and corrosion resistance without violating the physical laws of thermodynamics. Our findings suggest that the use of copper as a low-temperature intermediary binder provided a feasible solution for creating an impenetrable, monolithic barrier within the technological constraints of antiquity. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Qur’anic engineering؛ Dhū al-Qarnayn’s barrier؛ Scientific interpretation؛ Archaeometallurgy؛ Iron-Copper System؛ Composite Materials؛ Achaemenid Metallurgy؛ Interfacial Bonding | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| ارزیابی متالورژیکی سد ذوالقرنین: از فرضیه آلیاژ تا مدل کامپوزیت آهن-مس | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| مصطفی جعفری | ||
| دانشکده علوم شیمی و نفت، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| ساخت سد توسط ذوالقرنین، آنگونه که در سوره کهف (آیه ۹۶) توصیف شده است، شامل ترکیب منحصربهفردی از آهن و مس است. بهطور سنتی، این فرآیند به عنوان ایجاد یک «آلیاژ متالورژیکی همگن» تفسیر شده است. با این حال، از منظر علم مواد، این «فرضیه آلیاژسازی» با چالشهای فنی شدیدی روبروست؛ از جمله نقطه ذوب بسیار بالای آهن و پدیده ناهمامتزاجی ذاتی در سیستم آهن-مس (Fe-Cu). این پژوهش با بهرهگیری از روششناسی چندرشتهای، تحلیلهای قرآنی را با دادههای تاریخی متالورژی در عصر هخامنشی (قرن ششم پیش از میلاد به عنوان یک مبنا برای فناوری) ترکیب میکند. استدلال ما بر این است که این سد نه محصول یک آلیاژسازی نابهنگام (آناکرونیستی)، بلکه شاهکاری از مهندسی کامپوزیت (چندسازه) بوده است. با معرفی یک «مدل کامپوزیت» مبتنی بر «اتصال حرارتی میانسطحی» و «نفوذ موئینگی»، نشان میدهیم که مهندسان باستان چگونه توانستهاند بدون نقض قوانین فیزیکی ترمودینامیک، به یکپارچگی ساختاری (ردم) و مقاومت در برابر خوردگی دست یابند. یافتههای ما نشان میدهد که استفاده از مس به عنوان یک پیونددهنده واسط با دمای پایین، راهکاری عملی برای ایجاد یک سد نفوذناپذیر و یکپارچه در چارچوب محدودیتهای تکنولوژیک دوران باستان فراهم کرده است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| مهندسی قرآنی, سد ذوالقرنین, تفسیر علمی, متالورژی باستانی, سیستم آهن-مس, مواد کامپوزیت, متالورژی هخامنشی, اتصال میانسطحی | ||
| اصل مقاله | ||
1. IntroductionThe narrative of Dhū al-Qarnayn in Surah al-Kahf stands as one of the most remarkable and multi-layered accounts in the Qur’an. For centuries, this story has sparked deep inquiry across numerous dimensions, including, but not limited to, the historical identity of Dhū al-Qarnayn, the nature and origin of the tribes of Gog and Magog (Yaʾjūj and Maʾjūj), and the means (asbāb) of his global travels (van Donzel & Schmidt 2010). Among these varied aspects, the Barrier (al-Sadd) has remained a central point of fascination, encompassing two distinct areas of research: its geographical location and its unique technical construction. The quest for the barrier’s location has historically garnered significant interest; a notable example is the journey of the Abbasid explorer Sallām al-Tarjumān around 842 CE, who was commissioned by Caliph al-Wāthiq bi-llāh specifically to locate the structure (van Donzel & Schmidt 2010). While efforts like Sallām’s sought to identify its physical remains, the methodology of its assembly has received less analytical attention. The Qur’anic account (Q. 18:96-97) depicts a precise engineering sequence: آتُونی زُبَرَ الْحَدیدِ حَتَّى إِذا ساوى بَیْنَ الصَّدَفَیْنِ قالَ انْفُخُوا حَتَّى إِذا جَعَلَهُ ناراً قالَ آتُونی أُفْرِغْ عَلَیْهِ قِطْراً * فَمَا اسْطاعُوا أَنْ یَظْهَرُوهُ وَ مَا اسْتَطاعُوا لَهُ نَقْباً (الکهف/96-97) “Bring me pieces of iron!” When he had levelled up between the flanks, he said, “Blow!” When he had turned it into fire, he said, “Bring me molten copper to pour over it” (96). So they could neither scale it, nor could they make a hole in it (Q. 18:96-97). Dhū al-Qarnayn reached a region between two mountain slopes (al-ṣadafayn) and requested the inhabitants' physical labour and power (quwwah). The construction involved stacking massive iron blocks (zubar al-ḥadīd) until they levelled the gap between the mountains. He then applied heat until the iron reached a state of incandescence (nār), followed by pouring molten copper (qiṭr) over the assembly. The resulting barrier was described as a massive, unified structure that the adversaries could neither scale, due to its height and smoothness, nor pierce, implying a monument of immense structural continuity. Traditionally, this iron-copper construction has been interpreted as the creation of a homogenous metallurgical alloy (Moghaddasi 2022). However, the feasibility of such a process, producing a unified alloy on such a monumental scale, requires a detailed investigation into materials science and the historical technology available in antiquity. This paper aims to conduct a technical evaluation of these claims, specifically examining the metallurgical prerequisites of the iron-copper (Fe-Cu) system and the thermal constraints of ancient engineering. By establishing a historical baseline in the 6th century BCE (the Achaemenid era), we investigate the “Alloy Hypothesis” against documented technological constants. Following this evaluation, we propose a “Composite Engineering Model” based on interfacial bonding. This model offers a detailed technical explanation of how copper and iron could interact to form a unified structure, providing a new perspective on how such a barrier could be realized within the framework of ancient engineering principles. 2. Theoretical Framework and Historical Context2.1. Technological Baseline and Chronological ReferenceThe technical evaluation of Dhū al-Qarnayn’s barrier requires a stable historical reference point to define the boundaries of ancient engineering. For the purposes of this study, we adopt the hypothesis proposed by Tabataba'i (1996, 13: 391), which identifies Dhū al-Qarnayn as Cyrus the Great (6th century BCE). This selection provides a concrete chronological setting for assessing available materials and techniques. However, it is crucial to note that the specific historical identity, whether Cyrus or another figure from the same broad era, does not fundamentally alter the metallurgical core of this research. This is due to the prolonged stability of ancient technology; during this period and for centuries thereafter, the rate of innovation in thermal processing was relatively slow. The technological ceiling of that era remained essentially static regarding iron smelting and fusion techniques. Consequently, the engineering arguments presented in this paper remain valid across a wide chronological window. A more rigorous analysis of these technological constants, and the reasons they preclude modern industrial methods, will be detailed in the following sections. Having established this historical baseline, we must now examine the specific metallurgical boundaries of the Achaemenid period to distinguish the feasible from the impossible in ancient construction. 2.2. Historical Context and Archaeological AbsenceThe identification of Dhū al-Qarnayn with Cyrus the Great (6th century BCE), following Tabataba'i’s hypothesis, is adopted primarily as a technological baseline rather than a definitive historical attribution. Metallurgical capabilities based on bloomery iron production, characterized by a practical temperature ceiling of approximately 1100–1300°C, remained largely stable for several centuries across the ancient Near East and neighbouring regions. Therefore, the core engineering arguments of this study remain valid even if the barrier is attributed to a slightly earlier or later period. Furthermore, the location of the barrier is not necessarily limited to the Achaemenid heartland. Considering the empire’s vast frontiers and the Qur’anic description of remote mountain passes (al-ṣadafayn), the structure could plausibly be situated in peripheral mountainous zones such as the Caucasus, Central Asia, or other frontier regions where systematic archaeological surveys remain incomplete. The absence of definitive archaeological remains does not negate its existence. A barrier of limited length, likely no more than a few hundred meters, could readily have been concealed by millennia of alluviation, landslides, and sediment accumulation in a mountain pass environment. The Qur’anic text emphasizes that the barrier could neither be scaled nor pierced (Q. 18:97), which is consistent with its potential burial under natural geological processes without structural failure. This multidisciplinary study, therefore, focuses on the engineering feasibility of the described construction, offering a plausible composite model that is fully consistent with the technological capabilities of the era. 3. Technological Constraints and the Engineering ProblemThe construction of the barrier, as detailed in the Qur’anic narrative, involves the manipulation of massive quantities of iron, referred to as zubar al-ḥadīd (literally massive pieces or blocks of iron). The process describes the application of heat until these masses reach a state of nār (translated as fire, here implying a glowing, incandescent thermal state). From an engineering perspective, the primary challenge lies in the integration of these discrete blocks into a single, unified radm (a term denoting a stacked, reinforced, and tightly packed structure). 3.1. The Metallurgical Complexity of the Iron-Copper SystemTo evaluate the feasibility of the Alloy Hypothesis, it is necessary to examine the fundamental materials science of the Iron-Copper (Fe-Cu) system. According to the Springer Materials Database, iron and copper are characterized by a significant lack of solid solubility. The iron-copper system consists of alloys and mixtures that are immiscible in the solid state, meaning they do not form a continuous solid solution, but rather exist as separate phases within the material. This immiscibility is due to the pronounced differences in their crystal structures, iron being body-centered cubic (BCC) and copper being face-centered cubic (FCC), and their atomic sizes (Springer Materials n.d.). This inherent immiscibility poses a severe engineering challenge. Even if the temperature were raised to the melting point of iron (1538°C) to achieve a liquid state, the challenge of homogenization would remain unresolved. Due to the metastable miscibility gap in the liquid phase, the two metals tend to separate like oil and water. In a large-scale construction like a barrier, this leads to gravitational segregation, where the denser iron-rich phase settles at the bottom, while the copper-rich phase floats toward the surface, preventing the formation of a unified, high-strength alloy. Furthermore, as highlighted by contemporary research (Sun 2020), producing high-performance Fe-Cu alloys with a uniform dispersion of phases requires advanced industrial preparation techniques that were non-existent in antiquity. These include:
Therefore, the validity of any construction theory depends not only on chemical possibility but also on its scalability. We must now critically analyse whether the technological framework of the 6th century BCE could support such extreme thermal, chemical, and structural demands. 3.1.1 Metallurgical and Engineering PrerequisitesTo evaluate the feasibility of any unification theory regarding the barrier, it is necessary to examine the fundamental materials science of the iron-copper (Fe-Cu) system and the mechanics of thermal joining. Historically and scientifically, creating a monolithic structure of this magnitude would necessitate fulfilling the following rigorous prerequisites: 3.1.1.1. Chemical and Phase HomogenizationIf the barrier is interpreted as a homogeneous alloy (Moghaddasi 2022), it must overcome the inherent immiscibility of the Fe-Cu system. According to the Springer Materials Database, the iron-copper system consists of alloys and mixtures that are immiscible in the solid state. This immiscibility is due to the pronounced differences in their crystal structures (BCC iron vs. FCC copper) and their atomic sizes (Springer Materials n.d.). To prevent gravitational segregation (where denser iron settles at the bottom), modern industry requires vacuum induction melting or upward continuous casting (Sun 2020). Any model of the barrier must account for how this atomic-level integration was managed without such advanced infrastructure. 3.1.1.2. Large-Scale Fusion and Thermal JoiningIf the model assumes that the iron blocks (zubar al-ḥadīd) were joined through fusion welding or a monolithic thermal bond to form a radm, the following infrastructure is required:
3.1.1.3. Geometric and Spatial Scale-UpThe feasibility of these metallurgical processes is strictly bound to the geographical constraints of the site:
3.2. Technological Impossibility and the Historical DeadlockThe technological landscape of the 6th century BCE under Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 BCE) was dominated by bloomery iron production, a low-temperature process that precluded the large-scale fusion, homogenization, or alloying required for a monolithic Fe-Cu barrier. Bloomery furnaces, the primary method for iron smelting across the Achaemenid Empire and the broader Near East, operated at maximum temperatures of 1100–1300°C, well below the melting point of iron (1538°C) (Tylecote 1992). These furnaces produced spongy iron blooms intermixed with slag, which required extensive hot hammering (smithing) to consolidate the metal, rather than molten iron suitable for casting or the thermal joining of massive blocks (Pleiner 2000). In contrast, the blast furnace, capable of reaching temperatures over 1500°C in the bosh to produce molten pig iron and low-iron glassy slags, emerged only in post-medieval Europe (post-12th century) and was absent in the ancient Near East (Tylecote 1992). These limitations persisted well into later periods, with no evidence of breakthroughs in high-temperature melting or controlled atmospheres until much later eras (Erb-Satullo 2019). Thus, the prerequisites outlined in Section 3.1, atomic homogenization, fusion welding, and monumental thermal management, far exceeded the capabilities of Achaemenid engineering, rendering such a barrier infeasible without anachronistic modern interventions. Beyond the limitations of furnace temperature, the physical dimensions of the barrier (e.g., a 30-meter span) presented an insurmountable logistical challenge. In ancient metallurgy, thermal energy was typically localized and transient. To achieve the state of incandescence (nār) or to perform fusion welding across thousands of tons of zubar al-ḥadīd, an engineer would have needed to:
As established by the Springer Materials (n.d.) data on the immiscibility of the Fe-Cu system, any attempt at alloying without modern stirring and vacuum technology would result in phase separation and structural failure. Therefore, the Alloy Hypothesis (Moghaddasi 2022) remains a metallurgical anachronism, rendering such a barrier infeasible without the use of modern interventions. Given these insurmountable thermal and logistical deadlocks, the Alloy Hypothesis fails to provide a viable engineering explanation for the barrier’s construction. This necessitates a shift in perspective from metallurgical fusion to a composite structural model. In the following section, we demonstrate how the specific sequence of the Qur’anic narrative describes a sophisticated process of interfacial bonding, which bypassed the thermal ceiling of the ancient world. 4. The Proposed Model: Composite Structure and Interfacial Thermal BondingThe dismissal of the Alloy Hypothesis leaves two critical engineering questions unanswered: firstly, if the copper was not intended for alloying, what was its specific functional role? Secondly, how were the massive iron blocks (zubar al-ḥadīd) integrated into a stable, vertical structure without recourse to large-scale fusion welding? To address these inquiries, we propose a Composite Engineering Model in which copper and iron maintain their distinct material identities while acting in synergy. This model can be analysed through two primary functions: 4.1. Copper as a Protective and Passivating LayerIn the environmental conditions of a mountain pass, an unprotected iron structure would be highly susceptible to rapid oxidation. The choice of copper as a coating material provides a superior electrochemical shield due to the following factors:
4.2. Copper as a Structural Intermediary (Capillary Infiltration)The most significant engineering advantage of this model is its circumvention of the 1538°C melting point of iron. Instead, it utilizes the principles of interfacial thermal bonding and capillary infiltration:
4.3. Modern Applications and Comparative Performance of Fe-Cu CompositesTo contextualize the proposed composite model within contemporary materials science, it is useful to examine modern analogues of iron-copper systems, even though the Qur’anic barrier is best understood as a macroscopic composite rather than a homogeneous alloy. Modern Fe-Cu materials are primarily produced as composites using advanced techniques such as powder metallurgy, mechanical alloying, or brazing, due to the very limited solid solubility in the Fe-Cu system (Raghavan 2004). Typical compositional ranges include:
4.3.1. Comparison with Alternative Alloys in Construction and Structural Applications
In modern engineering, the principle of liquid-phase infiltration and capillary bonding is widely employed in brazing and sintered components (Way et al. 2020). This confirms that the ancient technique described in the Qur’an relies on universal physical phenomena, wetting, capillarity, and interfacial diffusion, without requiring homogeneous alloying or anachronistic technology. 5. ConclusionThis study has demonstrated that interpreting the Dhū al-Qarnayn barrier as a homogeneous metallurgical alloy poses significant scientific and historical challenges. The inherent immiscibility of the Fe-Cu system, as evidenced by the Springer Materials (n.d.) database, and the thermal ceiling of 6th-century BCE bloomery technology (Tylecote 1992), render bulk alloying or large-scale fusion welding an engineering impossibility for that era. These technical deadlocks suggest that the Alloy Hypothesis may be a result of applying modern metallurgical concepts to an ancient narrative. In contrast, the proposed Composite Engineering Model offers a solution that is both scientifically sound and historically plausible. By shifting the focus from atomic-level alloying to interfacial thermal bonding, this model aligns seamlessly with the sequential steps described in the Qur’anic text. The process of pouring molten copper over pre-heated iron blocks acts as a sophisticated system of capillary infiltration (brazing). This method allowed ancient engineers to: achieve structural unification (radm) without the need to melt the massive iron core; provide a permanent electrochemical shield against corrosion, utilizing copper’s noble reduction potential (+0.34 V); and create an impenetrable, voidless barrier resistant to mechanical leverage. Ultimately, the strength of this model lies in its adherence to the natural laws of physics and metallurgy. It reveals that the construction of the barrier did not require a departure from the physical realities of the ancient world; rather, it was a masterpiece of composite design. By using copper not as an alloying element, but as a structural and chemical intermediary, the project achieved a level of durability and integrity that remains a testament to advanced ancient engineering, realized through a deep understanding of the materials at hand. | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
ASTM A588/A588M. (2019). Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel. ASTM International. ASTM B465/B465M. (2016). Standard Specification for Copper-Iron Alloy Plate, Sheet, Strip, and Rolled Bar. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/B0465-00 American Welding Society (AWS). (2025). Brazing Handbook (6th ed.). Miami, FL: American Welding Society. Copper Development Association. (n.d.). Corrosion Resistance of Copper. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.copper.org/applications/architecture/arch_dhb/corrosion/ Erb-Satullo, N. L. (2019). The innovation and adoption of iron in the ancient Near East. Journal of Archaeological Research, 27(4), 557–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-019-09129-6 Harris Products Group. (n.d.). How Brazing Works - Capillary Action. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.harrisproductsgroup.com/en/Resources/Knowledge-Center/Tech-Tips/Tech-Tips-OLD/How-Brazing-Works-Capillary-Action Jang, J. M. et al. (2024). Fabrication of Cu-Infiltrated Journal Bearing by Binder Jetting Additive Manufacturing. Crystals, 14(11), 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst14110912 Li, J., Feng, H., Zhang, J., Chen, P., & Cheng, J. (2024). Effect of Cu content on the microstructure and properties of sintered Fe-0.8C-xCu antifriction materials. Materials Research Express, 11(9), 096502. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ad72cf Lucas-Milhaupt. (n.d.). Brazing Fundamentals. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.lucasmilhaupt.com/Brazing-Academy/Brazing-Fundamentals Medlock, R., et al. (2019). Bridge Welding Reference Manual (Publication No. FHWA-HIF-19-088). Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/pubs/hif19088.pdf Moghaddasi, A. (2022). Why the Dhul-Qarnayn's dam is impenetrable? A Chemical and physical study. Journal of Interdisciplinary Qur'anic Studies, 1(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.37264/jiqs.v1i1.5 Pleiner, R. (2000). Iron in Archaeology: The European Bloomery Smelters. Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Raghavan, V. (2004). Fe-Cu (Iron-Copper). Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion, 25(6), 561-562. Skoog, D. A., West, D. M., Holler, F. J., & Crouch, S. R. (2013). Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. Springer Materials. (n.d.). The Iron-Copper (Fe-Cu) System. Springer Nature Database. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://materials.springer.com/substance/111201/iron-copper_system Strandberg, H., & Johansson, L.-G. (1998). Reactions of copper patina compounds—I. Influence of some air pollutants. Atmospheric Environment, 32(18), 3007–3017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00057-0 Sun, J. (2020). Preparation Technology and Industrial Application of New High-Performance Copper-Iron Alloy. Shanghai Metals Market (SMM). https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101204653-[copper-Summit]-preparation-Technology-and-Industrial-Application-of-New-High-performance-Copper-Iron-Alloy Tylecote, R. F. (1992). A History of Metallurgy (2nd ed.). Institute of Materials. Tabataba'i, M. H. (1996). Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Qom: Jāmiʿah Mudarrisīn. Van Donzel, E., & Schmidt, A. (2010). Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources: Sallam's Quest for Alexander's Wall. Brill. Way, M., Willingham, J., & Goodall, R. (2020). Brazing filler metals. International Materials Reviews, 65(6), 295–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2019.1613311 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 7 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 3 |
||
