# Durupinar Formation ## Intro The Durupınar formation is a boat-shaped ridge of earth and rock in eastern Türkiye, about 29 kilometers (18 miles) south of Mount Ararat, near the town of Doğubayazıt. It is roughly 160 meters (about 515 to 540 feet) long, close to the length of Noah's Ark if Genesis used a long cubit. Since 1959 people have asked whether it is the Ark's remains or a natural landform that happens to look like a ship. In 2026 the question got its largest scientific test so far. A permitted team led by an archaeology professor from Sivas Cumhuriyet University mapped the site, scanned it with ground-penetrating radar, drilled cores, and collected hundreds of soil samples. The team reports radar patterns it reads as chambers and corridors, soil richer in organic matter inside the outline than outside it, and charred wood drawn from almost 30 feet down. The wood is now at the lab for carbon-14 dating and species identification. As of November 2026 no lab result has been published, and the team's own lead archaeologist says nothing is proven until those results are in. This page lays out the history, what the 2026 work found, what the critics say, what the test results could and could not show, and how a Christian should talk about it while the answer is pending. **The 30-second version:** > The Durupınar formation near Mount Ararat is a boat-shaped landform about the length of Noah's Ark. Geologists have called it natural since a 1996 study. A permitted 2026 project led by Sivas Cumhuriyet University scanned it with radar, drilled cores, and recovered charred wood that is now being carbon-dated. Results are expected over the winter and in a 2027 report. The honest position today is: interesting, unproven, and worth watching. The case for the Flood does not depend on it either way. ![The Durupınar formation, a long boat-shaped ridge on a hillside, seen from the visitor center bluff in Ağrı province, eastern Türkiye](/codex/assets/durupinar-formation-2019.jpg) _The Durupınar formation in July 2019, seen from the visitor center bluff above it in Ağrı province. Photo: Wikkiwooki, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons._ ## In full The **Durupınar formation** (Turkish *Nuh'un Gemisi*, "Noah's Ship") is an elongated, pointed-oval landform near Üzengili village in the Doğubayazıt district of Ağrı province, inside the region the Bible calls "the mountains of Ararat" ([Genesis 8:4](/codex/genesis-8-4/)). Two readings compete: 1. **The natural-structure reading.** The shape is a doubly plunging syncline (a down-folded bowl of sedimentary layers) shaped by a mudflow and erosion, with mineral concentrations that once looked like iron fittings. This was the conclusion of geologist Lorence Collins and former Ark researcher David Fasold in the *Journal of Geoscience Education* (1996), and it remains the mainstream view. Several young-earth creationist geologists, notably [Andrew Snelling](/codex/andrew-snelling/), have agreed that the formation is natural. 2. **The buried-vessel reading.** The outline is the trace of a large wooden structure, long since decayed or mineralized, that settled on a mudflow and was carried downslope. Advocates point to the outline's dimensions, regular subsurface radar reflections, soil chemistry differences inside and outside the outline, and, since 2026, deep organic material. The 2026 Durupınar project is the first permitted, university-led study designed to test the second reading against the first with radar, coring, soil chemistry, and radiocarbon dating. It is still in its laboratory phase. ## Timeline | Year | Event | |---|---| | 1948 | Local reports describe a ship-shaped form exposed on the hillside after earthquakes and heavy rains (as later retold by investigators; not independently documented) | | 1959 | Turkish Army captain İlhan Durupınar notices the shape in aerial survey photographs; the site later takes his name | | 1960 | An American expedition visits and digs into the formation, finds nothing it judges to be a ship, and the site falls quiet for two decades | | 1985-1987 | Ron Wyatt and David Fasold promote the site as the Ark; Fasold runs subsurface scans; Türkiye protects the site and builds a visitor center (the protection does not officially identify it as the Ark) | | 1992 | Creationist geologist [Andrew Snelling](/codex/andrew-snelling/) publishes a critique in *Creation* magazine arguing the formation is natural | | 1996 | Lorence Collins and David Fasold publish the natural-syncline study in the *Journal of Geoscience Education*; Fasold had abandoned his earlier view | | 2014, 2019, 2021 | Electrical-resistivity and radar surveys report linear and angular reflections several meters down | | Dec 2022 | The Mount Ararat and Noah's Ark Research Team (Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, Istanbul Technical University, Andrews University) collects about 30 rock and soil samples | | Oct 2023 | Results announced: clayey and marine materials, with indications of human activity in the area between roughly 5500 and 3000 BC. Vice Rector Faruk Kaya cautions that the dating cannot show "that the ship is here" | | 2023 | A paper at the 7th International Mount Ararat and Noah's Ark Symposium reports geometric radar patterns about 3 to 7 meters deep | | 2024 | Noah's Ark Scans soil tests report about three times more organic matter inside the outline than outside it, plus potassium and pH differences | | 29 June 2026 | The 2026 field season begins under Prof. Dr. Cenker Atila (Sivas Cumhuriyet University), with deputy leaders Andrew Jones and Dr. Evrensel Barış Berkant; about 20 researchers from five countries | | Aug 2026 | Atila reports preliminary interior samples with about 40 percent more carbon than exterior samples, and radar anomalies with edges meeting at right angles | | Sept 2026 | Core drilling begins; the team reports drilling past 60 feet in places without striking continuous bedrock. Pottery fragments are found beside (not inside) the formation, in styles Jones places between the early Chalcolithic and the Iron Age | | Late Sept 2026 | Fieldwork closes after about 90 days | | Oct 2026 | At an eastern-Türkiye Noah's Ark symposium, Atila endorses preliminary radar results from Dr. Khosrow Bakhtar. On 26 October the team announces that charred wood recovered from almost 30 feet deep has gone for carbon-14 dating and species identification | | Winter 2026-27 | Laboratory analysis of soil, core and wood samples | | 2027 | Full report planned as *Durupınar Formation 2026 Research*, with further seasons; excavation only if non-destructive methods yield strong evidence | ## The 2026 investigation ### Who and how - **Leadership.** Prof. Dr. Cenker Atila, Department of Archaeology, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, directs the project under official permits. Andrew Jones, founder of the American group Noah's Ark Scans, is deputy leader; Noah's Ark Scans raised much of the funding. - **Method, in order.** Precision GPS mapping and a 3D terrain model; high-resolution ground-penetrating radar; soil sampling guided by the radar; then narrow dry core drilling into selected radar targets. The plan deliberately avoids an excavation trench unless the less destructive methods produce strong evidence. - **Scale.** Reports give about 1,000 soil samples from roughly 150 locations (the project's figure as reported by Türkiye Today); an earlier report gave "more than 300" from inside and outside the outline. A burrow-inspection robot ("Gopher"), designed by Robert Ross of La Trobe University from devices built for wombat and armadillo burrows, was planned for voids. - **Atila's stated framing.** The work "is not based on the assumption that a ship lies underground." It tests whether the subsurface holds material a natural syncline would not. ### What the team reports 1. **Radar patterns.** Subsurface reflections with regular edges, some meeting at right angles, which Atila says could indicate cavities or structural divisions. Bakhtar reports corridors and chambers and a three-level arrangement, which Atila connected to the three decks of [Genesis 6:16](/codex/genesis-6-16/). Atila has also said of the voids, "I don't want to say absolutely." 2. **Soil chemistry.** More carbon and organic matter inside the outline than immediately outside it (about 40 percent more carbon in the 2026 preliminary samples; about three times the organic matter in the 2024 tests), plus potassium and pH differences. 3. **No bedrock where critics expect it.** Jones reports that cores went past 60 feet in places and hit "mainly soil," not the continuous rock a solid syncline would predict. This claim has not yet been peer reviewed. 4. **Charred wood at depth.** Multiple pieces of burnt wood from almost 30 feet down, now being tested for radiocarbon age, wood species, and traces of pitch or resin. Jones has said openly that the wood "could be the remains of the Ark or a shepherd's campfire from centuries ago" and that its age is unknown until testing ends. 5. **Pottery nearby.** Fragments beside the formation in styles spanning the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age, awaiting laboratory confirmation. ### Reported numbers that do not yet agree The sources reporting on the 2026 season give figures that conflict. Until the formal report appears, treat each as provisional: - **Samples:** "more than 300" versus "about 1,000 from about 150 locations." - **Organic difference:** "40 percent more carbon" (2026, Atila) versus "three times more organic matter" (2024, Jones). These may measure different things in different years. - **Drilling depth:** "more than 60 feet" versus "about 20 meters" (about 66 feet). These roughly agree. - **Length of the formation:** about 515 feet (Bakhtar), 538 feet (Fasold), and 157 meters (about 515 feet, from 300 royal cubits) all appear in coverage. - **"Verified" versus "preliminary."** The October press release headline calls the radar results verified; its own body calls them preliminary. Much of the coverage traces back to Noah's Ark Scans press releases, which come from a party with a stake in the outcome. Atila's university statements are more cautious than the releases. ## What the tests can and cannot show The 2026 work is worth taking seriously because it can fail. Each result has a definite reading: | Result | What it would mean | What it would not mean | |---|---|---| | Wood dates to recent centuries | Shepherd fires, buried debris, or slope material; strongly against the vessel reading | Nothing about the Flood itself | | Wood dates to the third millennium BC or earlier | Ancient organic material at depth inside the outline; a real anomaly for the purely natural reading | Not by itself a ship: organic matter also accumulates in soils and slope deposits, as Jones himself notes | | Wood is a worked timber species with pitch or tool marks | The strongest possible support short of excavation | Still requires excavation and peer review | | Wood is fully mineralized | Cannot be radiocarbon dated by the usual method | Neither for nor against | | Cores reach continuous bedrock under the outline | Supports the syncline reading | Does not touch other lines of Flood evidence | | Radar voids confirmed by camera or core | Real cavities | Cavities form naturally too; radar alone cannot tell timber from rock, moisture, or sediment | **A methodological note on radiocarbon.** Carbon-14 dates the death of the organism, not the building of anything from it. Young-earth researchers also hold that radiocarbon ages in Flood-era material can run older than true age because of a different pre-Flood carbon balance (see [Carbon-14 in Deep-Time Specimens Argument](/codex/carbon-14-in-deep-time-specimens-argument/)). Whatever result comes back will need that framework stated up front, so that neither side reads the number as more than it is. ## The case for the site, as its advocates make it - **Location.** It lies inside the biblical "mountains of Ararat," the region of ancient Urartu ([Genesis 8:4](/codex/genesis-8-4/)), on a slope where a vessel grounded on a peak could have slid with a mudflow. - **Dimensions that agree with Genesis.** The formation is about 515 to 540 feet long, which agrees with the 300 cubits of [Genesis 6:15](/codex/genesis-6-15/) measured in the royal cubit of about 52 centimeters. A natural landform could have had any length; this one has the length the text gives. The full comparison is below. - **Shape.** A pointed-oval outline that stands out from the surrounding terrain, with a regular internal pattern on radar. - **Subsurface anomalies.** Organic-rich soil inside the outline, no continuous bedrock at depth, and charred wood at about 30 feet. - **Ancient human presence.** Pottery and the 2023 indications of human activity between about 5500 and 3000 BC place people in the immediate area early. ## The cubit comparison: evidence for the account The formation's length is one of the strongest points in the site's favor. [Genesis 6:15](/codex/genesis-6-15/) gives the Ark as 300 cubits long, 50 wide and 30 high, and the formation, measured independently in the 1980s and again in 2026, comes out at the length 300 cubits gives on the royal cubit. That agreement was not built into the site by anyone: the outline was photographed from the air in 1959 by an army surveyor who was not looking for the Ark. The text does not say which cubit it uses, and ancient cubits varied. Two are usually proposed: | | Genesis | Common cubit (about 18 in / 45.7 cm) | Royal Egyptian cubit (about 20.6 in / 52.4 cm) | Durupınar formation | |---|---|---|---|---| | Length | 300 cubits | about 450 ft (137 m) | about 515 ft (157 m) | about 515 ft (Bakhtar, 2026) to 538 ft (Fasold, 1980s) | | Width | 50 cubits | about 75 ft (23 m) | about 86 ft (26 m) | no reliable published figure in the sources consulted | | Height | 30 cubits | about 45 ft (14 m) | about 52 ft (16 m) | cannot be measured from a buried outline | What the comparison shows: - **The length affirms the account.** On the royal cubit the formation is a close fit to 300 cubits: about 515 feet for the Genesis Ark, about 515 to 538 feet for the formation. A biblical measurement recorded thousands of years ago lines up with a landform in the very region where Genesis 8:4 places the landing. On the common cubit the formation runs about 65 to 90 feet long, so the strength of the match rests on the royal cubit. - **Why advocates prefer the royal cubit.** Moses was trained in Egypt ([Acts 7:22](/codex/acts-7-22/)), and the royal cubit is the best-documented long cubit of the ancient Near East. Critics reply that the narrative is set long before Egyptian standards and that most Ark studies, including the creationist ones on [Noahs Ark Feasibility](/codex/noahs-ark-feasibility/), use the common cubit. - **Width is the open question.** Advocates have argued that a decaying hull would splay outward as it settled, so a buried outline would read wider than the vessel. That is a hypothesis to test, not a measurement. - **Height is not testable from the surface.** Only coring or excavation could show whether three decks ([Genesis 6:16](/codex/genesis-6-16/)) lie beneath, which is why the 2026 radar report of three levels matters and why it needs confirmation. - **How to state it.** The fair claim is that the length agrees with Genesis on the royal cubit, in the region Genesis names. The 2026 team has not claimed an exact match on every dimension, and coverage of the project notes that cubit standards vary, so present the length as corroborating evidence that the lab results will either strengthen or weaken. ## The case against the site, as its critics make it - **The 1996 study.** Collins and Fasold describe a doubly plunging syncline whose outline came from mudflow and erosion, and read the earlier "iron fittings" as limonite and magnetite concentrations and the "petrified wood" as volcanic and sedimentary rock. They found no fossil timber, elemental carbon, or structural remains. - **Creationist dissent.** The objection is not only secular. [Andrew Snelling](/codex/andrew-snelling/) (1992) and other young-earth geologists judged the formation natural, and leading creationist organizations have declined to endorse it. Some creationists also hold that a gopher-wood vessel would not survive thousands of years in the open, or that Noah's family likely reused the timber. - **Radar limits.** Ground-penetrating radar records reflections from changes in material, moisture, and density. Regular reflections can come from layered sediment, fractures, or cavities. - **Carbon is not a date.** Higher organic content tells you there is more organic matter, not where it came from or how old it is. - **Source independence.** The most dramatic claims come from a funded advocacy group's press releases and have not yet been peer reviewed. - **Rival landing sites.** Older tradition places the landing elsewhere in the Ararat region: Mount Cudi (Syriac and Kurdish tradition, Berossus as cited by [Josephus](/codex/josephus/), the Targums, and the Quran's *al-Judi* in Q 11:44), and Greater Ararat itself (dominant from about the eleventh to twelfth century AD). See [Global Flood Evidence](/codex/global-flood-evidence/) for that discussion. ## How to talk about it while results are pending 1. **Do not claim the Ark has been found.** Headlines saying "Noah's Ark found" are not supported by anything published as of November 2026. Overclaiming hands a skeptic an easy win and, if the dates come back recent, damages trust in everything else you said. 2. **Do not dismiss it either.** A permitted, university-led project with radar, coring, and radiocarbon dating is a fair test. The proper stance is the one Atila takes: wait for the lab. 3. **Keep the Flood case where it is strong.** The historical case for the Flood rests on the text, the worldwide flood traditions, and the geological lines laid out on [Global Flood Evidence](/codex/global-flood-evidence/), [Flood Geology](/codex/flood-geology/), [Marine Fossils on Mountains Argument](/codex/marine-fossils-on-mountains-argument/), [Folded Strata Without Fracturing Argument](/codex/folded-strata-without-fracturing-argument/), and [Grand Canyon Formation](/codex/grand-canyon-formation/). A recent date at Durupınar does not touch any of these; an ancient one adds to them. 4. **Use it as a teaching case.** It is a live example of how evidence is tested: a claim, a method that could refute it, results published, peer review. That is a fair standard to hold every side to. ## Updates - **26-28 October 2026.** Charred wood from almost 30 feet deep sent for carbon-14 dating and species identification; results not yet released. An Ancient Origins fact check (27 October 2026) rated the claim that the wood will prove the Ark "unverified," noting that the wood's exact location and whether it is charred or petrified had not been documented publicly. - **Expected next.** Winter laboratory results, then the 2027 report *Durupınar Formation 2026 Research*. This page will be updated when results are published. ## Scholarship Published academic works this page draws on, each matched to a publisher, index or library catalog record. - Lorence Gene Collins and David Franklin Fasold, "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure," *Journal of Geoscience Education* 44 (1996). [doi:10.5408/1089-9995-44.4.439](https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-44.4.439) [open access](http://hdl.handle.net/10211.2/3026) ## See also - [Noahs Ark Feasibility](/codex/noahs-ark-feasibility/), whether the Ark described in Genesis could have worked at all - [Global Flood Evidence](/codex/global-flood-evidence/), the full evidential case, including the earlier Ark-search claims and the Mount Cudi tradition - [Genesis Flood](/codex/genesis-flood/), the range of Christian readings of the Flood - [Flood Geology](/codex/flood-geology/), the geological model the Ark account belongs to - [Carbon-14 in Deep-Time Specimens Argument](/codex/carbon-14-in-deep-time-specimens-argument/), how young-earth researchers read radiocarbon in Flood-era material - [Andrew Snelling](/codex/andrew-snelling/), creationist geologist who judged the formation natural - [Genesis 8.4](/codex/genesis-8-4/), "the mountains of Ararat" ## Common questions this page answers **Q: Has Noah's Ark been found in Turkey?** Not as of November 2026. A permitted 2026 study of the Durupınar formation near Mount Ararat recovered charred wood from about 30 feet deep and reported radar anomalies, but the wood is still being carbon-dated and nothing has been peer reviewed. The lead archaeologist says it is not proof until the lab results are in. **Q: What is the Durupınar formation?** A boat-shaped landform about 160 meters long, roughly 18 miles south of Mount Ararat near Doğubayazıt in eastern Türkiye. It was spotted in aerial photographs in 1959 by a Turkish army captain, İlhan Durupınar. Geologists have read it as a natural syncline since a 1996 study; advocates think it holds the remains of the Ark. **Q: Who is investigating the Noah's Ark site in 2026?** A team led by Prof. Dr. Cenker Atila of Sivas Cumhuriyet University's archaeology department, with Andrew Jones of Noah's Ark Scans as deputy leader, about 20 researchers from five countries, working under official Turkish permits. Fieldwork ran from late June to late September 2026; laboratory work continues through the winter, with a report planned for 2027. **Q: Will carbon dating prove the wood is from Noah's Ark?** No test can do that on its own. Carbon-14 tells when the tree died, not whether its wood was part of a ship. A recent date would count strongly against the site; an ancient date would be a real anomaly worth excavating, and species identification and traces of pitch would matter as much as the date. **Q: Do creationists think Durupınar is the Ark?** Not all of them. Creationist geologist Andrew Snelling judged it a natural formation in 1992, and major creationist organizations have not endorsed it. Advocates of the site, including Noah's Ark Scans, are themselves creationists, so this is partly an in-house debate. **Q: Does the case for Noah's Flood depend on finding the Ark?** No. The case rests on the biblical text, the worldwide flood traditions, and geological lines such as marine fossils at altitude, folded strata, and continent-wide sediment layers. A find at Durupınar would add to that case; a negative result would not touch it.