Full Breakdown
New Drilling at Turkey’s Durupinar Formation Raises Questions About Its Origin
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Findings from the 2026 Field Season
Researchers drilled more than 20 m (? 60 ft) into the boat-shaped structure and retrieved over 300 soil samples from inside and outside the formation. Preliminary observations indicate the boreholes encountered primarily soil rather than a continuous block of limestone or other bedrock. Samples from within the formation contain roughly three times the amount of organic matter and about 38 % higher potassium levels than surrounding soils.
Background & Context
The Durupinar formation was first identified in 1959 when a Kurdish shepherd reported a large, boat-shaped outcrop near the Turkish-Armenian border. Its length—approximately 538 ft—matches the dimensions described for the biblical vessel, prompting decades of speculation. In the 1990s, geologists Lorence Gene Collins and David Franklin Fasold published a paper rejecting the ark hypothesis, concluding that the feature is a natural rock structure. Subsequent investigations have alternated between geological explanations (e.g., syncline, bedrock mass) and archaeological interest.
Data & Statistics
- Depth drilled: >20 m (? 60 ft) in multiple locations.
- Samples collected: >300 soil cores from varied depths.
- Organic matter: ~3 × higher inside the formation.
- Potassium: 38 % higher inside the formation.
- Soil composition: Predominantly soft sediment; occasional boulders but no consistent solid rock layer.
Official Statements & Responses
Dr. Khosrow Bakhtar, engineer behind the BakhtarRadar system used for subsurface imaging, described the radar anomalies as “extraordinary” and suggested they likely originate from a single original object, though he stopped short of identifying it as a ship. The Turkish government granted permission in 2026 for the more invasive investigations, allowing both geological and archaeological work to proceed.
Criticism & Opposition
Collins and Fasold maintain that the formation is a natural volcanic outcrop, citing mineralogical analyses that attribute observed features to weathered volcanic material rather than human construction. Pottery fragments reported near the site date to the Chalcolithic through Iron Age periods and were found outside, not within, the formation, limiting their relevance to the ark hypothesis.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
These interpretations have not yet undergone independent peer review, and the organization’s statements remain unverified by external experts. Earlier geological studies continue to describe the formation as a natural syncline, highlighting the absence of bedrock in recent cores. The lack of excavated settlements nearby and the pending laboratory results leave a substantive evidentiary gap.
Verbatim Quotes
- “When we drilled into the formation this year for the first time, we did not encounter any solid block of rock, of limestone, [or] of any type of a rock," Jones said.” — Andrew Jones, project vice president
- “CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER "We’re still studying our results, but we believe that this should give [skeptics] pause when they say this is a rock formation," Jones said.” — Andrew Jones, project vice president
- “That's what we'll be testing this winter,” — Andrew Jones, project vice president
- “This is the most significant finding for 40 years or 45 years of my career. I have never seen this kind of anomalies before. I have never in my life,” — Dr. Khosrow Bakhtar
What's Next
The team will complete organic-matter testing on the cores during the upcoming winter months, collaborating with Sivas University and Ankara University. Results will determine whether any decayed wood or other anthropogenic signatures are present, shaping the next phase of investigation and public discourse.