Durupınar sitesi | |
 The Durupınar site in 2007 | |
  Shown within Turkey Show map of Turkey Durupınar site (Near East) Show map of Near East Durupınar site (Asia) Show map of Asia | |
| Location | Üzengili [tr],Turkey |
|---|---|
| Coordinates | 39°26′26.39″N44°14′5.22″E / 39.4406639°N 44.2347833°E /39.4406639; 44.2347833 |
| Satellite of | Doğubayazıt |
| Site notes | |
| Archaeologists | Prof. Ayhan Yardimciel |
| Ownership | Kafkas Üniversitesi, KARS |
| Public access | Complete |
TheDurupınar site (Turkish:Durupınar sitesi) is ageological formation of 164 metres (538 feet) made oflimonite onMount Tendürek,[1] adjacent to the village of Üzengili ineastern Anatolia orTurkey. The site is 3 kilometres (1.9 miles) north of theIranian border, 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) southeast ofDoğubayazıt in theAğrı Province, and 29 km (18 mi) south of the GreaterMount Ararat summit, at an elevation of 1,966 to 2,004 m (6,450 to 6,575 ft) above sea level.
The size and shape of the formation led to its promotion by some believers as the petrified ruins of the originalNoah's Ark. GeologistsLorence G. Collins (an anti-Creationist) andAndrew Snelling (aYoung Earth Creationist)[1][2] assert that it is an entirely natural formation but have nominated it as (geological) heritage. The site is near several officially unnamed peaks, though locals call one of the nearby peaksCudi Dağı inTurkish, which salvage expertDavid Fasold linked toAl Cudi, the place named in theQuran as the final resting place of Noah's Ark.[3][4]
According to local reports, heavy rains combined with three earthquakes exposed the formation from the surrounding mud on May 19, 1948. It was discovered by aKurdish shepherd named Reshit Sarihan.[5][6] It was subsequently identified byTurkish Army Captain Ilhan Durupınar (Turkish:İlhan Durupınar)—for whom it was subsequently named—in aTurkish Air Force aerial photo while on a mapping mission forNATO in October 1959. Durupınar informed the Turkish government of his discovery and a group from the Archeological Research Foundation which includedGeorge Vandeman, Ilhan Durupınar, and Arthur Brandenberger, professor of photogrammetry, surveyed the site in September 1960. After two days of digging and dynamiting inside the "boat-shaped" formation, the expedition members found onlysoil androcks. Their official news release concluded that "there were no visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made".[7]
The site was then ignored until 1977, when it was rediscovered and promoted bypseudoarchaeologist and amateur explorerRon Wyatt. Throughout the 1980s, Wyatt repeatedly tried to interest other people in the site, including ark hunter and former astronautJames Irwin andcreationistJohn D. Morris, neither of whom was convinced the formation was the Ark.[8][9] In 1985, Wyatt was joined byDavid Fasold and geophysicistJohn Baumgardner for the expedition recounted in Fasold'sThe Ark of Noah. As soon as Fasold saw the site, he exclaimed that it was ashipwreck.[10] Fasold brought alongground-penetrating radar equipment and a "frequency generator", set it on the wavelength foriron, and searched the formation for internal ironloci (the latter technique was later compared todowsing by the site's detractors).[11] Fasold and the team states that the ground penetration radar revealed a regular internal formation and measured the length of the formation as 538 ft (164 m), close to the 300cubits or 515 feet (157 m) of the Noah's Ark in theBible, if the royalAncient Egyptian cubit of 20.62 in (52.4 cm) is used.[12][13] Fasold believed the team found the fossilized remains of the upper deck and that the original reed substructure had disappeared. In the nearby village of Kazan (formerly Arzap), they examined so-called drogue (anchor) stones that they believed were once attached to the ark.
Creationist commentators, such as Andrew Snelling in theCreation Ministries International journalCreation, wrote that "there are no scientific principles employed" in the "so-called frequency generator" used by Wyatt's team. He called it a "gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals" with "brass welding rods being used in essence, asdivining rods, similar to the use of a forked stick to search for water."[14]
Fasold asserted in his 1988 book that locals call one of the peaks near to the Durupınar site al Cudi (TurkishCudi Dagi, KurdishÇîyaye Cûdî) and linked this to theMount Judi named in the Quran as the final resting place of Noah's Ark.[3] The assertion is controversial and not well supported by local toponymy.[citation needed] After a few expeditions to the Durupınar site that included drilling and excavation in the 1990s, Fasold began to have doubts that the Durupınar formation was Noah's ark. He visited the site in September 1994 with Australian geologistIan Plimer and concluded that the formation was not a boat.[13] He surmised that ancient peoples had erroneously believed the site was the ark.[13][15] In 1996, Fasold co-wrote a paper with geologistLorence Collins titled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure", which concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. The same paper pointed out that the "anchors" were local volcanic stone.[15] The abstract reads:
A natural rock formation near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations oflimonite andmagnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plungingsyncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosedperidotite.Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the formation from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from localandesite and not from Mesopotamia.[15]
In April 1997, in sworn testimony at an Australian court case, Fasold repeated his doubts and noted that he regarded the claim that Noah's ark had been found as "absoluteBS".[16][17][18]
Others, such as fellow ark researcher David Allen Deal, reported that before his death, Fasold returned to a belief that the Durupınar site might be the location of the ark.[19] His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote:
He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the Durupınar site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark.[20]
In 2011, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey granted jurisdiction over Noah's ark works specifically to a five-professor Cultural Center Board of Directors from Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, as having precedence at the Durupınar site, overriding the Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s Immovable Cultural and Natural Assets High Council.[21][22]
The Arzap stones are a number of largestanding stones found near the Durupınar site by amateur archaeologistRon Wyatt with the aid of David Fasold and others. Fasold interpreted the artifacts asdrogues, stone weights used to stabilize the Ark in rough seas, because they all have achamfered hole cut at one end as if to fasten a rope to them, and his reading of the Epic ofGilgamesh, theBabylonian mythical account of the flood, suggested to him that such stones were used.[8][24]
Drogue stones were the equivalent of a stormanchor on ancient ships. They have been found in theNile and elsewhere in theMediterranean area, and like the stones found by Wyatt and Fasold, they are heavy and flat with a hole for tying a line at one end. Their purpose was to create drag in the water or along shallow sandy bottoms: the stone was attached to one end of a boat, and the drag produced would cause the bow or stern to face into the wind and wind-blown waves.[8]
A geological investigation of samples from the stones, published by geologistLorence Collins in co-authorship with their original discoverer David Fasold, found that they are of local rock and thus could not have been brought fromMesopotamia, the Ark's supposed place of origin.[15]
[Tie-breaking] Center Director & Assistant Directors appointed by the Rector & re-elected [by the Board]