On June 18, 2026, the story of Noah’s Ark once again entered the international agenda. The Noah’s Ark Scans project announced a new stage of research on the Durupınar geological formation in eastern Turkey, approximately 29 kilometers south of Mount Ararat.
This is not about a proven discovery of the ark, but about a controversial site that has intrigued geologists, archaeologists, biblical history researchers, and religious organizations for decades. Some consider Durupınar a natural formation. Others see it as a possible trace of an ancient artificial structure that resembles the description of Noah’s Ark in the Bible in shape and size.
What is known about the Durupınar formation
The Durupınar formation is located in eastern Turkey, in the Ağrı province area, near Mount Ararat and relatively close to the border with Iran. Externally, the object resembles the outline of a large ship, as if embedded in the ground. It is this shape that led to the site being associated with the biblical story of Noah’s Ark.
The history of the object did not begin in 2026. According to local reports, the unusual formation might have been discovered as early as May 19, 1948, after heavy rains and earthquakes made part of the terrain more noticeable. Later, in October 1959, Turkish captain İlhan Durupınar saw this object on an aerial photograph during a NATO mapping mission. It was his surname that became associated with the site.
By September 1960, the first research group arrived there. It included İlhan Durupınar himself, George Vandeman, and photogrammetry professor Arthur Brandenberger. The researchers conducted a brief inspection on site, dug inside the “boat-shaped” formation, and even used explosives. But in two days of work, they found only stones and soil. The official report concluded that there were no visible archaeological remains and that the object was a “quirk of nature,” not a man-made structure.
This is why Durupınar cannot be called a new discovery. It was known, visited, and debated. But the first inspection did not provide what is usually needed for a significant archaeological breakthrough: wooden structures, artifacts, datable material, traces of processing, or indisputable signs of an ancient ship.
Why the site was not fully explored earlier
After the 1960 inspection, the object remained on the periphery of scientific interest for a long time. The reason was not that it was completely forgotten, but that academic archaeology did not have sufficient grounds to start expensive and complex excavations.
Interest in Durupınar returned in 1977 when American amateur researcher Ron Wyatt began actively promoting the site. In the 1980s, other enthusiasts, including David Fasold and geophysicist John Baumgardner, joined the topic. They used ground-penetrating radar, took measurements, and claimed that there might be regular structures inside the formation. Fasold initially considered the object a possible remnant of a ship, and the length of the formation was linked to the biblical dimensions of the ark.
But it was this stage that made the topic problematic for academic science. Durupınar gained a reputation as a site more often promoted by “ark hunters” than by university archaeological schools. When an object is prematurely called Noah’s Ark, even before independent verification, scientists approach such claims much more cautiously.
In 1994, David Fasold visited the site with Australian geologist Ian Plimer and concluded that the formation was not a ship. In 1996, Fasold, along with geologist Lorence Collins, published a critical work describing Durupınar as a natural geological structure mistakenly taken for Noah’s Ark. The authors explained the “metal walls” as natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite, and other “traces” as features of rocks and minerals.
This significantly cooled the interest of the scientific community. For many geologists, Durupınar became an example of how an unusual landform, religious expectation, and the desire to find confirmation of an ancient text can lead to overly bold conclusions.
What has changed now
The new stage differs from past attempts in that the Noah’s Ark Scans project is not talking about immediate excavations but about a comprehensive research program. The project’s website states that this is a multi-stage plan, officially approved by several government bodies, and since 2019, the team has been using ground-penetrating radar, electrical tomography, LiDAR, and chemical analysis to determine whether the formation is a natural fold or the remains of a large destroyed wooden structure.
In the publication from June 18, 2026, attention was again drawn to the announcement of permission for large-scale work. According to the researchers, they plan to use non-destructive drilling, underground drones, remote sensing, and deeper processing of already obtained geophysical data.
Previously, the team stated that ground-penetrating radar scans revealed voids, angular lines, corridors, and multi-layered structures beneath the surface. According to supporters of the hypothesis, this may resemble the internal organization of a large ship. Some publications also mentioned data on a supposed tunnel that starts at a depth of about 4.3 meters, stretches almost 12 meters, then goes deeper and connects with a large square cavity.
But it is important to remain cautious here. Ground-penetrating radar shows anomalies, densities, voids, and contours, but by itself does not prove that we are looking at a ship. To make a strong conclusion, samples, dating, independent expertise, and an explanation of the site’s geology are needed.
Why excavations there are difficult
There are also practical reasons why Durupınar has not been fully excavated long ago. The site is located in eastern Turkey, in a complex region where any work requires permits, participation of local authorities, universities, and cultural heritage protection services. You cannot just come and dig there.
Moreover, the formation itself is in an area of unstable terrain, ground movement, and harsh winter conditions. If there is indeed an ancient structure underground, rough excavation could destroy it. If it is a natural formation, large-scale work could damage the geological object without significant scientific benefit.
This is why in recent years the focus has been on non-invasive methods: ground-penetrating radar, 3D scanning, soil analysis, core drilling, and underground devices. In 2025, it was also reported that fieldwork depends on protective measures and agreements with Turkish authorities and regional universities.
For the Israeli audience, this is especially important. The story of Noah is part of the Tanakh and the shared biblical heritage of the region. But interest in the biblical plot does not negate scientific caution. In such topics, one cannot substitute fact with expectation, or hypothesis with a ready conclusion.
Why scientists debate about Durupınar
Supporters of the ark version primarily point to the shape and size of the object. Durupınar looks like an elongated “boat-shaped” structure, and its length is often cited as about 164 meters or 538 feet. This is close to the biblical description of the ark: 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Converted to the metric system, it is often said to be approximately 157 meters long, 26 meters wide, and 16 meters high, although the exact size of the ancient cubit depends on the chosen measurement system.
Supporters of the hypothesis also point to the results of soil analyses. Publications from the project and media mentioned differences in chemical composition, elevated levels of organic material, carbon, and potassium, as well as possible signs of decomposed wood. Some reports spoke of marine deposits and traces of ancient flooding, but these conclusions require careful independent verification.
Skeptics respond that the shape of the object may be the result of natural processes. In the critical work by Collins and Fasold, Durupınar is described as a natural rock formation, and “walls,” “metal,” and “wood” are explained by minerals, rock folds, and metamorphic structures.
Therefore, the main question remains open: are the underground anomalies traces of an artificial object, or is it a complex but natural geology? There is no definitive answer yet.
In this sense, Nikk.Agency — Israel News | Nikk.Agency views the story of Durupınar not as a ready-made sensation, but as an important example of how ancient text, archaeology, geology, and religious memory continue to argue with each other. For Israel, such a topic is not abstract: it is connected with the Tanakh, with the concept of the ancient Middle East, and with the question of where faith ends and verifiable science begins.
When to expect results
According to the project authors, the expanded research program should continue in 2026, and the first results will be presented after data processing and verification. This is an important caveat: a loud headline can appear in one day, but a scientific conclusion requires time, samples, analysis, and independent confirmation.
If new research shows the presence of artificial structures, it will be an event of global significance. Such a result will attract the interest of archaeologists, historians of religion, specialists in the ancient Middle East, researchers of biblical texts, and a wide audience in Israel.
If it is confirmed that Durupınar is a natural formation, this will also be an important result. Science is valuable not only when it confirms expectations but also when it helps separate a beautiful hypothesis from the real picture of the past.
At the moment, after the announcement on June 18, 2026, the most accurate formulation remains cautious: an international group has received permission for a new stage of studying the Durupınar formation, which supporters of the hypothesis associate with Noah’s Ark. There is not yet enough evidence for a definitive conclusion.
But the very fact of a new expedition already makes this story notable. One of the most famous biblical plots is once again being tested with 21st-century tools — in eastern Turkey, near Mount Ararat, where ancient text, faith, geology, and archaeology continue to ask each other uncomfortable questions.