Is this Noah’s Ark? What the Durupınar evidence shows so far

About 18 miles south of Mount Ararat, in the far east of Turkey, a long, boat-shaped ridge lies in the hills above the village of Üzengili. Its length, roughly 515 feet, is close to the 300 cubits of Genesis 6:15. Known as the Durupınar formation, it has drawn ark hunters since a Turkish air survey photographed it in 1959. This year, two research teams have brought new tools to the old question.

Sifted Truth’s aim is to report this the way we would want any claim about Scripture reported: with everything that has been found, everything that hasn’t, and the questions that would decide it. We have rated the headline claim separately in Claims Examined, and we will update both pieces when lab results arrive.

What the Bible actually says

Genesis 8:4 says the ark came to rest “on the mountains of Ararat.” The plural matters. Ararat is the Hebrew name for the land of Urartu, a kingdom spread across eastern Turkey, Armenia and northwestern Iran. The text names a region, not a peak. Every candidate site, including Mount Ararat itself, Mount Judi far to the south and Durupınar, has to be weighed with that in mind.

What the 2026 teams report

Noah’s Ark Scans, led by Andrew Jones, used ground-penetrating radar developed by engineer Khosrow Bakhtar. The team reports linear features, right-angled intersections, layers and possible voids beneath the formation, which it interprets as possible corridors and compartments. Core drilling at more than 12 locations, some about 60 feet deep, found rich black soil and no bedrock.¹

A second team of about 20 researchers from five countries, led by Prof. Cenker Atila of Sivas Cumhuriyet University, spent roughly 90 days on site this summer. It collected about 1,000 soil samples from 150 locations, recovered pottery fragments, and reports carbon levels about 40% higher inside the formation than outside it.² Results from both teams’ lab work are expected in winter 2026–27.

The ancient witnesses

Long before radar, ancient writers said the ark’s remains could be visited. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing in Rome in the AD 90s, says the Armenians called the landing site “the Place of Descent” and that its remains “are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.”³

Josephus also quotes older writers. Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the third century BC, says part of the ship still survived in the mountains of the Gordyaeans and that people scraped off its bitumen to use as charms. Nicolaus of Damascus, King Herod’s court historian, describes a great mountain in Armenia called Baris, where “the remains of the timber were a great while preserved.”

That is real evidence of a long tradition of pilgrimage, and it is one of the most fascinating threads in the whole story. But precision matters. The Gordyaean mountains lie south of Lake Van, in the region of the traditional Mount Judi site, not obviously at Durupınar. The ancient sources support the belief that the ark landed in the region; they do not identify this particular formation.

The case against

The strongest skeptical case comes from an unexpected direction. David Fasold, an early champion of Durupınar, later co-wrote a 1996 paper with geologist Lorence Collins concluding that the formation is a natural geological structure. They argued that earlier “iron bracket” finds were weathered volcanic minerals.⁴ Boat-shaped features can form when mudflows move around a rock outcrop, and radar anomalies and organic-rich soil can have natural causes.

What would settle it

• Wood or worked timber recovered from inside the formation, identified by species.
• Radiocarbon dates on that material, published with lab names and sample locations.
• Evidence of construction: joinery, fittings or a deliberate internal structure confirmed by excavation, not radar alone.
• Publication in a peer-reviewed journal where geologists and archaeologists outside the project can test the data.

None of those has happened yet. That is not a reason for scoffing, and it is not a reason for headlines that say the ark has been found. It is a reason to wait for the data and to ask good questions in the meantime, as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11).

Why the flood story matters either way

Whatever Durupınar turns out to be, the flood narrative is one of the most connected stories in Scripture. Jesus points to “the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37), Peter treats the flood as a picture of baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21), and Hebrews 11:7 holds up Noah as a model of faith. Finding a hull would be remarkable. The story’s weight in the Bible does not depend on it.