My social media stream lately has been awash with claims about items supposedly dissevered at a site discovered by Turkish army captain Llhan Durupınar in 1959 that is believed by some to be the final resting site of Noah's Ark.
As a resident in Turkey and interested in Biblical sites, I have been aware of the site for some time but the last few months seem to have seen a piqued public interest in the site fueled (as far as I can tell) by the claims compiled in this article (if server not responding try re-posts here or here) about the advanced technological nature of various items supposed to be part of the archaeological find.
These claims include reports of advanced carpentry in the form of ancient Glulams…
Perhaps the most significant find from the Ark itself is a piece of petrified wood. When this was first found it appeared to be a large beam. But upon closer examination it is actually three pieces of plank that have been laminated together with some kind of organic glue!
…as well as a some rivets involving alloyed metals:
An analysis of the metal used to make the rivets revealed that they were a combination of iron (8.38%), aluminum (8.35%) and titanium (1.59%).
The list goes on although some associated claims seem a little less far fetched/ such as the ballast anchors:
[…] huge stones were discovered, some standing upright while others lying on the ground. These stones, weighing many tons, have holes carved in them.Scientists have determined that they were anchors and the holes would have been their attachment to a ship with hemp rope. […] The huge anchors would have been suspended from the keel of the ship.
Are the claims about technologically advanced artifacts made in this article reputable and reliable in the sense of having been verified as finds from this site, have been properly dated, and has there been sufficient independent review of the technological properties of these items been done?
I understand that almost all archaeological claims involve some degree of doubt but I would like to know if there is reason to be skeptical (and not perpetrate) these claims or if they hold enough credibility to be worth further interest and investigation.