Researchers Test Turkey Formation in Noah's Ark Investigation

New soil samples from Turkey's Durupinar formation have renewed debate over whether the boat-shaped geological feature near Mount Ararat could be connected to the biblical account of Noah's Ark. Researchers collected hundreds of samples at different depths during 2026, but laboratory analysis remains necessary to determine what the material reveals about the site's origins.

According to Popular Mechanics on October 7, researchers found carbon levels in samples taken from inside the formation were approximately 40 percent higher than those collected outside it. The team said the difference could reflect a concentration of organic material, potentially including wood, but the findings do not establish that a vessel is buried there.

The investigation involved about 20 researchers from five countries. Some samples came from depths of up to 60 feet, allowing the team to examine material beyond the surface deposits studied during earlier fieldwork.

Andrew Jones, vice president of the Noah's Ark Research Project, described the material encountered during drilling as predominantly soil rather than solid rock.

"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 rock. We were hitting mainly soil. 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, according to Popular Mechanics.

Researchers also recovered pottery fragments that might be associated with ancient settlements near the formation. None of the fragments was found inside the boat-shaped feature itself, limiting what the discoveries can establish about activity at the site.

Jones connected the pottery to the possibility of early human settlement nearby.

"You can connect the dots," Jones said.

He added that the pottery could help researchers investigate whether people lived near the formation during the period relevant to the proposed identification. The artifacts' precise dates and relationship to the geological feature remain unresolved.

Jones emphasized that the project has advanced the investigation without settling the central question.

"What excites me most is that questions debated for decades can now be investigated using physical samples from documented locations and depths," Jones told Newsweek. "We have taken a substantial step forward in our ability to test the site, not completed the investigation."

He also acknowledged continuing skepticism about the search.

"I can understand," Jones said, "because I have friends who are atheists or agnostic, and they think that I'm looking for Santa's house or something."

The formation has attracted interest since its identification in 1959. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Geoscience Education concluded that the feature was naturally occurring, providing an established scientific explanation that the current team is seeking to evaluate through additional physical samples.

Earlier preliminary sampling, conducted about three years before the latest fieldwork, identified evidence of human activity and marine life near the surface, according to Popular Mechanics. The 2026 expedition sought deeper material to investigate whether the formation contains evidence of a different origin.

A separate October 9 column by Danny Tyree in the Journal-Courier questioned headlines presenting the identification of Noah's Ark as conclusively established. The column cited a Daily Mail headline claiming, "Noah's Ark resting place '100 percent confirmed' after 4,300 years." Tyree argued that preliminary findings should not be confused with a completed archaeological investigation.

Tyree used familiar sayings to illustrate his concern about drawing conclusions before testing is complete.

"Measure twice, cut once" and "Measure twice, get those scissors out of your little brother's leg!" Tyree wrote, contrasting the conventional advice with a joke about careless measurement.

He also characterized the rush to publicize preliminary findings with the line, "Take a core sample and run to the press while it's being evaluated!"

Tyree acknowledged the expedition's efforts to investigate the site, noting that researchers have used radar, 3D scans and a robot called Gopher. He also described the long-running research history through a fictional aside: "OK, I forgot about the Durupinar Formation. So sue me!"

In another humorous passage, Tyree imagined children comparing Halloween discoveries: "I got five pieces of candy!" "I got a chocolate bar!" "I got a quarter!" and "I got a pottery shard.

Yaaayyy!" The examples underscored his view that archaeological work requires patience rather than spectacle.

The column also listed competing explanations for the formation, including "It's a naturally occurring rock formation," "It's mud that was diverted by rocks," and "It's where Mothra goes to lay eggs." Tyree followed the examples with the observation, "I'll bet it was hard voting with a name like 'Mrs. Noah.'"

Tyree discussed disagreements over whether the biblical flood narrative should be understood literally or symbolically, presenting one imagined argument as follows: "The whole flood narrative was just a metaphor for … something or another. A metaphor, or a simile or a palindrome or … now I wish I had paid more attention in class!"

He extended the joke to an imagined domestic dispute: "My wife left me a note about running off to Jamaica with my brother. What can it possibly mean? Maybe it's an allegory on the futility of returning to the womb." These examples were part of Tyree's commentary, not statements from the archaeological team.

Tyree wrote that he believes the biblical flood and Noah's accomplishments occurred, while suggesting that even conclusive archaeological evidence might not substantially change people's theological positions. His column offered no new physical evidence about the formation.

The research team's fieldwork for 2026 has concluded, with further laboratory analysis expected over the winter. Until those tests are complete, the elevated carbon readings and recovered artifacts remain preliminary findings rather than confirmation that Noah's Ark rested at the site.