Durupınar Formation

Overview

The Durupınar formation is a pointed-oval, hull-shaped ridge of rock and mud lying in the Telçeker earthflow valley south of Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. A Turkish army mapping captain named Durupınar spotted its outline on aerial survey photographs in September 1959. LIFE magazine printed a photo in its 5 September 1960 issue, pp. 112–114, as cited by Collins & Fasold 1996. Ron Wyatt took it up from 1977 on, and David Fasold, John Baumgardner (then at Los Alamos) and Atatürk University geologist Salih Bayraktutan surveyed it through the 1980s. Wyatt measured it as 515 ft (157 m), which he equated to 300 'Royal Egyptian cubits' of 20.6 in. On 17 September 1987 Turkey's Ministry of Culture and Tourism council (decision 3657) protected it as a natural site and open-air museum.

The claim that it is an ark rests on its shape and length, on metal-detector lines (13 longitudinal lines and 9 transverse lines, taken as walls), on iron-rich 'brackets', and on 'petrified wood' samples. Since 2014 it also rests on geophysics by Noah's Ark Scans (Andrew Jones et al.). Their 100 MHz GPR in 2019 showed right-angled and linear reflectors down to about 7 m, and ERT and LiDAR were added later. In 2024 they sampled soil at 22 points inside and outside the outline. A separate Turkish-American team (Istanbul Technical University, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, Andrews University) reported first lab results on about 30 samples in October 2023.

Two bodies of field evidence stand against each other. On one side, rock evidence: In 1988 four core holes went down as far as 10 m and recovered no wood, petrified or otherwise (Baumgardner, 1988). They met a ridge of layered bedrock along the centreline, and Baumgardner said it matched a roadcut about 0.5 mi away. Collins's thin sections showed the 'iron bracket' is limonite granules in a clay–quartz–calcite matrix, not smelted iron, and the 'wood' samples are basalt and andesite. Accounts of the 1988 work add that the cores were compromised by the water used to cool the bit. In 2026 the first permitted deep coring programme (Sivas Cumhuriyet University, directed by Cenker Atila, with Noah's Ark Scans) cored to 18 m inside and outside the formation from June to September. On 23 Sep 2026 the team announced a drill bit broke on a hard layer at 4–5 m. They suggested petrified wood but have no lab result yet. Samples went to Ankara, and results are promised for winter 2026–27 into 2027.

On the other side, the 2026 season's own field observations, as the team reports them: core holes inside the outline and control holes outside; sequences of soil and sediment with intervals of organic-rich material; cavities, one of which kept refilling with water as drilling went on; a layer at 4-5 m inside the outline that stopped the bit ('harder than limestone'); an underground camera robot (GOPHER) that reached about 12 m; and no bedrock or solid limestone met in any interior hole. Preliminary soil results gave about 40 percent more carbon inside the outline than outside (Atila, 30 Aug 2026), and GPR showed anomalies at 3-7 m with regular edges and right-angle intersections. None of this has yet been independently confirmed; about 1,000 samples and the cores are in a laboratory in Ankara, and the project director says the carbon analyses of organic matter and any wood will decide, with results expected within months.

What the evidence shows

• Outline: pointed-oval ridge; length measured 157 m (515 ft) by Wyatt and later workers; width given as 50 m maximum (district governorate; Avcı 2007); relief given as 4 m (Avcı 2007) to 13 m (governorate).
• Metal-detector survey (Wyatt, Fasold, Baumgardner, 1980s): 13 longitudinal lines of iron response converging at the pointed end, 9 transverse lines; Fasold reported >5,000 buried iron targets.
• The 'iron bracket' in thin section and SEM (Collins & Fasold 1996) is limonite granules shaped like ilmenitic-magnetite crystals, in a matrix of calcite, clay, quartz and anthophyllite. Five SEM spots gave variable composition with high, variable TiO2, which smelted iron would not show.
• Collins made 12 thin sections of 'petrified wood' samples collected by Fasold along the length and width of the formation; all were basalt or andesite (Collins 2016).
• 1988 coring (Bayraktutan & Baumgardner, 28 Jul–7 Aug 1988): hole 1 to 10 m, all mudflow material; holes 2–3 to about 6 m, changing abruptly at 5 m from pea-gravel mudflow to layered bedrock; hole 4 met bedrock at the surface. Baumgardner wrote in 1988 that there was 'no evidence for wood, petrified or otherwise'. Limonite nodules turned up at 3 points in the mudflow.
• White fossiliferous limestone crops out at the formation's midpoint. Collins (2016) reports that drilling shows it continues through and beyond the formation rather than ending at a point. Atabey (2025) dates the region's fossiliferous limestones as Eocene, 55–33 million years old.
• A stream channel 1.5 m wide and 1.5 m deep, filled with cobbles, cuts one dark sedimentary layer near the rounded end. The layers dip about 5° from the limestone toward the lower end (Collins 2016).
• GPR, 2019 (Noah's Ark Scans / ToPa 3D, 100 MHz): right-angled and linear reflectors to about 7 m on the NW side. A 234-ft 'central corridor' is a later reinterpretation of the same data (as reported by Fox News, 2025). No raw radargrams have been peer-reviewed.
• Soil chemistry, 2024 (Noah's Ark Scans, soil scientist William Crabtree): 22 points inside and outside the outline, collected in September and analysed over winter. Reported ratios vary by outlet: organic matter 2x, 2.72x ('carbon') or 3x inside vs outside; potassium about 38–40% higher inside; a pH difference. The lab is not named and no dataset has been published.
• ITU / AİÇÜ / Andrews University samples (press release, Oct 2023): about 30 rock and soil samples tested at ITU. Reported contents are clayey material, marine material and 'sea products' (mollusc remains), stated to be '3500 to 5000 years' old. The method, the material dated and the lab IDs were not given.
• Ceramic sherds exposed by road construction near the formation (reported Dec 2025 – Jan 2026) were assigned to the Chalcolithic, 5500–3000 BC, by Faruk Kaya (AİÇÜ). Typology is the implied basis. No excavation context has been published.
• 2026 season (29 Jun – 11 Sep 2026, under Sivas Cumhuriyet University with Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change approval): about 20 researchers from 5 countries. Work included GPS/3D modelling, GPR, cores to 18 m inside and outside the formation, and about 1,000 soil samples from 100–150 points. Arkeonews (23 Sep 2026) reported carbon about 40% higher inside, and a drill bit broke at 4–5 m inside the outline.
• 2026 cores, as reported by the team (23-26 Sep 2026): holes inside the outline and control holes beyond it; soil and sediment sequences, organic-rich intervals, cavities (one refilling with water); a bit-breaking layer at 4-5 m inside; no bedrock or solid limestone in the interior holes. Not yet independently confirmed.
• GOPHER underground camera robot: first run (25 Sep 2026) stalled in loose sediment; second run (26 Sep) reached about 12 m (team timeline).
• GPR 2026: anomalies at about 3-7 m with relatively regular edges and right-angle intersections (Arkeonews, 30 Aug 2026).
• Soil carbon 2026 (preliminary): 'The amount of carbon coming from the interior of the ship is 40 percent higher than what was found outside' (Atila, 30 Aug 2026); about 1,000 samples from 100-150 points, in lab at Ankara.
• Pottery fragments the team suggests may predate the flood period were recovered in 2026; not yet dated (Atila, 27 Sep 2026).

Open questions

• What is the formation made of? Collins & Fasold (J. Geoscience Education 44, 1996) read it as a doubly plunging syncline, from converging limonite lines at the pointed end and fossiliferous limestone cutting the fold. Collins later withdrew the syncline reading in a postscript to his reprint. Collins (PSCF 68:4, 2016) instead reads flat-lying flood-plain sediments shaped by landslide debris flowing around a resistant basalt mass at the pointed end. Avcı (Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 66, 2007) reads a slumped, joint-bounded block of Miocene limestone creeping on Eocene clays, noting an axial displacement of about 20° from the valley trend. Güner (Jeomorfoloji Dergisi 14, 1986; summarised by Avcı) read a residual hill of ophiolitic bedrock. Atabey (MTA geologist, ResearchGate upload June 2025, after a site visit on 30 May 2025) returns to a syncline shaped by landslide. The naturalistic readings disagree with each other on mechanism, even though all agree the rock is bedrock. The 2026 interior cores, as the team reports them, met no bedrock or solid limestone at all, while the 1988 holes 2-3 met layered bedrock at 5 m: either the two campaigns sampled different parts of the formation, or one set of logs is wrong. The 2026 hard layer at 4-5 m sits at the same depth as the 1988 bedrock contact. The Ankara laboratory work (mineralogy, microscopy, organic content, radiocarbon) is the test that can settle it.
• Wood or rock? Wyatt (1994 video; Wyatt Archaeological Research) identified black layered rock as petrified wood and deck beams, citing Galbraith Laboratory chemistry (Fe, Mg, Al, Ca, Ti). Collins (2016) answers that those element ratios match basalt, not silicified wood, which is nearly pure SiO2, and his 12 thin sections are all volcanic rock. The 1988 cores found no wood (Baumgardner). The 2026 claim of a hard layer at 4–5 m that broke a bit (Jones, press release 23 Sep 2026) is untested until the core is sectioned; basalt and limestone were both already logged in this formation. Against that, the team reports organic-rich intervals in the 2026 cores and reads them as the decayed upper timbers of a vessel; buried soil horizons or organic sediment within a mudflow are the alternative reading. The sectioned cores decide.
• Do the GPR 'rooms' show structure or bedding? Noah's Ark Scans (Jones 2023, 7th Int. Noah's Ark Symposium; 2019 ToPa 3D survey) read 100 MHz right-angle reflectors at about 7 m as walls and corridors. Collins (2020, 'Discussion of the Subsurface Images Project') reads the same patterns as joint sets, alteration of feldspar to clay along fractures, and dense basalt masses. He notes that the joint system on the surface is where the metal-detector 'wall' ribbons were laid. Neither side has published radargrams with ground truth from cores; the 2026 cores are the first test able to settle it.
• Is the inside/outside soil difference meaningful? Crabtree (Noah's Ark Scans, 2024–25) reads higher organic matter, potassium and carbon inside the outline as decayed wood. No lab, method or data table has been published, and the reported ratios differ between outlets (2x, 2.72x, 3x). The ridge holds a different substrate from the surrounding mudflow (bedrock near the surface vs colluvium, per the 1988 cores), which is itself a possible cause of different soil and vegetation. That reading is ours, and it is untested.
• What was dated in 2023? The Hürriyet report (26 Oct 2023) quotes Kaya: samples were found in the dating study to be '3500 ile 5000 yıl öncesine ait' (3,500–5,000 years old). The same report says there was human activity 'milattan önce 5500 ve 3000 yılları arasındaki' (5500–3000 BC). Material, method and lab report are all unstated, and no publication was found. Kaya himself said (Hürriyet 2023; Christian Daily, 8 Jan 2026) that the dating cannot show the ark was there and that 'no satisfactory information or evidence has been reached.'

Since 2024

• 2023-10The ITU / AİÇÜ / Andrews University team announced first results on about 30 samples at the 7th International Noah's Ark Symposium (marine material, molluscs, '3,500–5,000 years'). Unpublished, method unstated. [7]
• 2025-05Noah's Ark Scans released 2024 soil chemistry (22 points; organic/carbon about 2–3x inside, potassium about 38–40% higher). Unpublished data, lab unnamed. [9]
• 2025-06MTA geologist Eşref Atabey visited on 30 May 2025 and posted a paper reading the formation as a syncline shaped by landslide. ResearchGate upload, not peer-reviewed. [15]
• 2026-01Chalcolithic (5500–3000 BC) sherds from road construction nearby were reported. Kaya said this is not evidence for the ark. [8]
• 2026-08The first permitted multi-method season (29 Jun–11 Sep 2026) was announced under Sivas Cumhuriyet University (Atila), with Noah's Ark Scans. [12]
• 2026-09Cores to 18 m inside and outside the formation; a bit broke at 4–5 m inside it. About 1,000 soil samples went to an Ankara lab, with radiocarbon planned. Results were promised for winter 2026–27, and nothing had been released by 27 Sep 2026. [11]
• 2026-09Atila (27 Sep 2026) called '100 percent proven' headlines misleading and, in the same statements, said the team had reached 'data that astonishes'; carbon analyses of organic matter and any wood will decide, with results expected in 2-3 months; papers and a book on the 2026 season are planned. [21]
• 2026-08Atila reports preliminary soil carbon about 40 percent higher inside the outline than outside, and GPR anomalies at 3-7 m with regular edges and right-angle intersections. [19]
• 2026-09Team field report: control holes outside the outline; organic-rich intervals; a water-retaining cavity; no bedrock or solid limestone in interior holes; GOPHER camera robot to about 12 m. Not independently confirmed; cores to Ankara. [17]
• 2026-09'100 percent confirmed' (that the formation is man-made) attributed to the team in press coverage; the same coverage notes no peer-reviewed study yet shows human construction. [23]

Sources

1. Collins, Lorence G. & Fasold, David F. 1996. 'Bogus "Noah's Ark" from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure.' Journal of Geoscience Education 44(4): 439–444. DOI 10.5408/1089-9995-44.4.439 link study
2. Collins, Lorence G. 2016. 'Noah's Ark near Dogubayazit, Turkey?' Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 68(4), December 2016: 218–226. link study
3. Collins, Lorence G. 2020 (15 Aug). 'Discussion of the Subsurface Images Project of Noah's Ark NOAHSARKSCANS.NZ.' CSUN web paper. link study
4. Avcı, Murat. 2007. '"Noah's Ark": its relationship to the Telçeker earthflow, Mount Ararat, Eastern Turkey.' Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 66: 377–380. DOI 10.1007/s10064-007-0084-3 link study
5. Baumgardner, John (with Salih Bayraktutan). 1988 core-drilling statements: 'A Search for the Elusive Ark' (newsletter, 19 Aug 1988) and later emails (1999, 2014, 2021), compiled as 'Durupınar Core Drilling Locations and Results'. link excavation report
6. T.C. Doğubayazıt Kaymakamlığı (District Governorate). 'Nuh'un Gemisi' page. link museum record
7. Hürriyet, 26 Oct 2023. 'Nuh'un gemisine ait olduğuna inanılıyordu, kalıntılar incelendi: İşte ilk sonuçlar.' link study
8. Christian Daily International, 8 Jan 2026. 'Geographer says evidence remains inconclusive at Noah's Ark-linked site.' link study
9. Fox News, 26 May 2025. 'Turkey site matching biblical Noah's Ark dimensions shows signs of ancient wood' (Noah's Ark Scans soil results). link study
10. Noah's Ark Scans. 'The Ark Project' and 'Research Papers & Reports' pages (Andrew Jones et al.). link excavation report
11. Noah's Ark Scans press release via GlobeNewswire, 23 Sep 2026. 'Core Drilling Begins at Durupinar Noah's Ark Site, Drill Bit Shatters on Possible Layer of Petrified Wood.' link study
12. Anatolian Archaeology, 4 Aug 2026. 'Largest-Ever Study Begins at Türkiye's Noah's Ark-Shaped Formation.' link study
13. Altuntaş, Leman. Arkeonews, 23 Sep 2026. 'Noah's Ark Mystery Deepens as New Discoveries Emerge Near Mount Ararat.' link study
14. Türkiye Görüş, 27 Sep 2026. 'Araştırma ekibi başkanı açıkladı: Nuh'un Gemisi bulundu mu?' (statements of Cenker Atila). link study
15. Atabey, Eşref (MTA). 2025 (June). 'Nuh'un Gemisi: Heyelan Etkisiyle Oluşmuş Jeolojik Bir Yapı' / 'Noah's Ark is a Geological Structure Formed by Landslides.' ResearchGate upload 20 Jun 2025 (RG pub. 392866505). link study
16. Wyatt Archaeological Research. 'A Giant Shipwreck.' link study
17. Noah's Ark Scans (A. Jones), 'Core Drilling Begins at Noah's Ark Site: Possible Petrified Wood Found', Substack, Sept 2026 link field report (team)
18. Newsweek, 24 Sep 2026 (updated 25 Sep), 'Noah's Ark Hunters Share Video Update From Inside Mysterious Structure' link news
19. Arkeonews, 30 Aug 2026, 'Radar Finds Right-Angled Anomalies Beneath Türkiye's Famous Noah's Ark Formation' link news
20. Above the Norm News, 22 Sep 2026 (updated 26 Sep), 'Drilling Begins at the 157-Metre Noah's Ark Formation Near Mount Ararat' link news (dated timeline)
21. NTV, 27 Sep 2026, 'Araştırma ekibi başkanı açıkladı. Nuh'un Gemisi bulundu mu?' (Cenker Atila) link news (statements of the project director)
22. GZT, 27 Sep 2026, 'Nuh'un Gemisi bulundu mu? Kritik araştırma tamamlandı' (Cenker Atila) link news (statements of the project director)
23. Euro Weekly News, 26 Sep 2026, 'Noah's Ark is 100% confirmed as huge discovery is made, scientists say' link news
24. Deseret News, 31 Oct 2023, 'Why a group of researchers believe they found human activity near a possible Noah's Ark site' link news

Checked against new publications through 2026-09.