SHIP-SHAPED SOIL
As of now this could be the biggest fossilized shape and the most studied object of curiosity since 1959.
On May 19, 1948 after heavy rains and three earthquakes in Telçeker village, the ark-shaped mound started to re-expose from the surrounding mud; and Reshit Sarihan, a Kurdish shepherd, discovered it. News writers might have distorted his report, claiming that he saw it on Mt. Ararat, the favorite mountain of the European chronographers, who identified Masis (Mashu) as the mountain where the Noah's ark was claimed had landed upon - and this was the reason why Europeans called Masis as "Mount Ararat."
At the back of that twin volcano (Masis) to the southern direction is a plain known in Gilgamesh Epic as
"Waters of Death"
possibly because molten materials from erupting Tendurek and Masis volcanoes are frequenting it in the pass, one of which was likely in 550 BCE and probably during the era of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (669- c. 627 BCE), a possible editor of recent standard Epic of Gilgamesh.
Such volcanic activities became the sources of volcanic rocks.
There are two sites of sacred stones (now known as "Anchor or Drogue Stones") associated with the flood hero. Those stones on Nasar (Akyayla site) in Telçeker, near to the purported first landing site of the ark, and those in Arzap (Kazan) village. In the epic they are called "SACRED STONES " used by gods or priests (probably to determine the volcanic activity of Mt. Ararat).
Those were sacred most likely because they were from the volcanoes there, from Hades deep underground fire. The preliminary conclusion of Lorence Gene Collins of California State University Department of Geological Sciences supports the conjecture that those stones are indeed of volcanic origin, and as from the region of Mt. Ararat (Pearce and others, 1990), corroborating the biblical hint that Noah was from Ararat region.
And the owner of those sacred stones, as told in the Gilgamesh Epic, was Urshanabi, the ferryman who lived in the then island of Arzap and a friend of the flood hero Utnapishtim (Noah) who was visited by a king of Uruk after the 2029 BCE river flood in Ararat.
The volcanic earthquakes and eruptions and heavy rains could be the reason why the ark was carried away by mud flows from its former landing site to the lower ground.
Apparently the remains of the ark were repaired during the Iron Age as it became sacred and then Ararat's wine sellers were selling kufars' willow frames and popularizing to Babylon the story of a wine planter flood hero. This was also the time that the region where the big boat was located was identified as one of the hills of Nisir (a mountain range from Telceker down to between Great Zab river and Lake Umria to Adiabene).
The big reed boat was looted in ancient days and the first historically referenced to do this was king Sennacherib (705-681 BCE), who called the relic as "Beth Nisroch," masculine form of "Nisar" of a Babylonian goddess of agriculture, as the vicinity was known Nasar by the inhabitants and made a temple which he called Araske, likely named after the Lesser Araske river near Arzap and Dogubeyazit. This Assyrian emperor made his version of ship house in what is now called Mt. Cudi.
Subsequently Akyayla site became a pilgrimage area (hence the mountain where it is belonged is now called Ziyaret Dag) and many pilgrims in the 300 BCE to 1st century AD and 300 AD are reportedly having looted its remaining woods, leaving only its hardened rock and fossilized shape.
Apparently, after Josephus gave notice to the world of this ark in Mt. Baris, it was repaired, measured its length and the woods were fastened with nails in the 2nd century AD, and Eusebius (c.275-339) became interested to find this ark, and Yaqob Nsibnaya (fl. 337 AD) found it in Sararad mountain in mountainous region of Armenia near the boundary of Ayrarat territory where Masis is located. But Armenians and pilgrims pulled out its nails and woods during the time of Philostorgius (c.368-439 AD).
Rains and mud flows might have moved it to a lower location and covered it, and by the time of historian Isidore (c. 560-636) its exact whereabouts was not known, and they only named Masis as the Mt. Ararat and the possible location.
Centuries, after when remained nothing on it but the shape which is full of natural sedimentary materials, it reappeared when under ground volcanic activities jiggled the covering soil.
And soft and washable soil which might have detached by earthquakes and heavy rains were most likely also the reason why this fossilized ark shape has resurfaced in September of 1948.
In October 1959 Turkish Air Force Army Captain Ilhan Durupinar,a cartography expert, took aerial photographs of the region on a mapping mission for NATO, and eventually saw the ship shape mound.
By the altitude or distance of the aircraft to the object, the shadow of the ship-shaped object, and the measurements of the lenses, Captain Durupinar has calculated its approximated length to 500 feet.
On a military aircraft, Turkish-Armenian photojournalist Ara Güler took the photographs, and said:
“If this is the sign of Noah’s Ark, it’s like seeing God down there.”
And he shared to the world the photographs, and it was first published in Australian Pix magazine on July 9, 1960, and then by American Life Magazine (shown on the image).
“ Noah's Ark? A Boatlike Form Seen Near Mt. Ararat Raises a Fascinating Question
While routinely examining aerial photos of his country, a Turkish army captain suddenly gaped at the picture shown above. There, on a mountain 20 miles south of Mt. Ararat, the biblical landfall of Noah’s Ark, was a boat-shaped form about 500 feet long. The captain passed on the word. Soon an expedition including American scientists set out for the site.
At 7,000 feet, in the midst of crevasses and landslide debris, the explorers found a clear, grassy area shaped like a ship and rimmed with steep, packed-earth sides. Its dimensions are close to those given in Genesis: ‘The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, the breadth of it 50 cubits, and the height of it 30 cubits,’ that is, 450x75x45 feet. A quick two-day survey revealed no sign that the object was man made. Yet a scientist in the group says nothing in nature could create such a symmetrical shape. A thorough excavation may be made another year to solve the mystery.”
The Life magazine, September 5, 1960, p.112, speaks about two sides here: first the boat-shaped object and then the quick judgment that there is no man-made in it.
George Vandeman, captain Ilhan Durupinar, and professor of photogrammetry Brandenberger of Archeological Research Foundation (ARF) surveyed the site in September 1960 after the Turkish government received the report of this mound.
Unlearned how to conduct other scientific means to study the subject, some of their companions destroyed one of its little portion by a dynamite, and found nothing on digging it but "dirt, rocks and more dirt," and their dig brought disappointment to the expedition members.
Their 2 days archeological destructive digging and ocular inspection resulted to a conclusion that
"there were no visible archaeological remains" and that this boat-shaped object "was a freak of nature and not man-made."
Because of the dynamiting, the portion of the ark structure becomes penetrable by water and may lead to further destruction internally, as shown (red) here in a 3-D resistivity image photographed by John Larsen.
This is one of the possible reasons why destructive archaeologists are later not allowed to continue to destroy it, and it was not allowed to be destroyed even before the 1980's.
And for this was one of the possible reasons too why biblical archaeologists do not recognize any other scientific study of the ark-formation as a valid scientific means to learn more about it. That is, they rejected any other scientific means to study it except by archaeological dig, and there are biblical archaeologists who do not even recognize it as ark fossil in layman's terms or as an ark-shaped formation. And on their comments, scientists who studied this ark-formation are considered under pseudo-archaeology, bringing the populace thinking that there are no other scientists except biblical archaeologists.
So, there is no other scientific means in the world but archaeology and there is no other way of archaeology but to destroy it? Good luck to your archaeology.
Some scientists and proud experts are even blatantly lying in suggesting that this ship-shaped mound is not allowed to be scientifically studied because the local government wanting it to be a tourist destination, regardless if it is about Noah's Ark or not. But this lie is proved false many times when the local government there is allowing any other scientific method of studying it, except destructive.
Nondestructive scientific studies, however, are allowed by the Turkish government in some instances.
One of these studies is by using nondestructive deep penetrating radar scanning.
The first to conduct scientific research on the site and the ark fossil were geologist Dr. Salih Bayraktutan of Erzurum’s Atatürk University and the scientists of California University’s Los Alamos National Laboratory. They studied the ark fossil and the nearby places that have boat-shaped formations too, and on their 80-page scientific report suggests that:
“It is highly likely that the formation underground is [of] a ship. Archaeological excavations must be launched..."
Turkish scientist's studies made that area a protected archeological site, and government of that province made it a Noah's Ark park.
Some pseudo-archaeologists are suggesting that it was the yellow-ribbon activity of Ron Wyatt the reason why it was made by the provincial government as a Noah's Ark tourist destination.
And other pseudo-archaeologists say that the reason why this is protected by the government is for tourist attractions (needless to say, pseudo-archaeologists do not recognize other scientists from their preliminary scientific testings on the structure).
It was David Fasold who was permitted by the Rector of the Erzurum's Ataturk University under the project leader, Associate Professor Salih Bayraktutan.
Fasold discovered circumstantial evidence to suggest that this structure could have been the fossilized shape of an ark:
(1) Its length and width are in agreement with what the Bible prescribed:
"300 by 50 cubits."
(Egyptian cubit is between 523.6 mm, 20.6 inches and 529.2 mm, 20.84 in);
(2) Nine divisions are detected inside the buried structure, corroborating with what has been described by Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh: "Its innards I divided into nine parts," and the ark-shaped formation displays an area of 44 100, similar to flood hero's description:
"One IKU (acre) was its whole floor space" (Gardner and Maier, 1984).
Guner (1986) reported that other streamlined rock-shapes have been found in the area, but according to geologist Bayraktutan, these shapes do not display the same morphological and internal features.
Dr. Bayraktun found it difficult to explain why the site had so many geometric properties if it were just some randomly formed natural outcrop, thus seems to confirm what the ground-penetrating radar detected in the ark fossil, that is, it has symmetry and regular distribution (Fasold, 1988).
The haste conclusion of Lorence Gene Collins based on the feelings of other investigators that its boat appearance be
"ONLY superficial"
is proved wrong by other scientific studies.
Why the haste conclusion of Collins is bogus? Because he or even other scientists are not using 3-D images of the internal parts of the said mound as supporting sources. So, his conclusion that the boat-like appearance is "Only superficial" is purely based on imagination.
In 2014 geophysicist John Larsen was given a permission by the Turkish government to conduct with a then advance ground penetrating resistivity scanner, so that we have had now a scientific 3-D resistivity images of the internal portions of the ark fossil. And what he has seen using that scientific instrument?
The ark shape is not just superficial as claimed by Collins but in fact even deep inside the ground. And this scientific confirmation that it is ship-shaped has partly vindicated the belief of renowned photogrammetry and Earth scientist Arthur Brandenberger of Ohio University.
After scientific testings using nondestructive cables to sent to and receive reflected electric signals in the ark-shaped object done by John Larsen and also by computer engineer & archaeologist Andrew Jones,
Cem Sertesen, the director of the documentary 2017 “Noah’s Ark," commented that these are the actual images of the ship-shaped structure.
"They are neither fake nor simulation."
"They show," he said to Anadolu Agency, "the entire ship buried underground."
"It's a ship, but it’s too early to call it Noah’s Ark. We have to do a lot of work. This can only be done with the support of universities and the Turkish state.”
Therefore, so-called scientific opinion that the ship-shaped structure is ONLY surface appearance is of the pseudo-archaeologist. So, all biblical archaeologists who also have the same feeling-based opinion are themselves pseudo-archaeologists. Therefore, the so-called anti-pseudoarchaeologists are themselves sometimes pseudo-archaeologists. One reason why this happens is because antagonists have the habit of using ignorance as a tool to judge rather than to based on scientific experimentations. Scientific instruments can show to us that it is ship-shaped even deep inside the soil.
Pseudo-archaeologists, usually Noah's ark antagonists, are in a habit of using a lie or fallacy, like saying Noah had built ark in southern Mesopotamia, when the Bible suggests that Adam lived in western part of Assyria and the ark was floating on the flooded earth of Ararat (Genesis 2:14-15 & 8:4).
In Gilgamesh Epic, Utnapishtim (Noah) had built his big boat near a body of water, most likely on Lake Van or on Lesser Araske river near Arzap.
I am not saying that all biblical archaeologists are practicing this, but most of them become pseudo-archaeologists with regards to Noah's ark structure in the "mountains of Ararat."
Instead to correct the erroneous terminology usually use by laymen, they brought them into more error. One of the erroneous terminology is the term "Noah's ark" itself.
If Noah's ark was made of biodegradable materials, then it is expected that now its materials have already decomposed, so what would be left likely is its shape, as expectedly the "shape" could be fossilized by natural geological activities. So, what could we have had now is the ark-shaped fossil, which is the fossilized shape of the ark.
And if it is an ark-shaped fossil, it is very unlikely to destroy it, that is, destroyers of ark-shaped fossil are enemies of the ark-shaped fossil.
But Dr. Andre A. Snelling on September 1, 1992 (in Creation 14, no. 4) accused Agri governor Sevkit Ekinci of having " a number of times intervened to stop a dig [on it] because he may not want to run the risk that excavation shows it not to be the Ark, and thus have no further tourist potential."
This high speculation is a form of a lie because even before it was declared as Noah's Ark tourist destination
it was forbidden to dig.
And any scientific examination of it, except destructive, is allowable since 1985.
Why some scientists are engaging themselves in such a lie?
Because there are westerner experts and their adherents believing that Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat (Masis).
The Bible does not say that the ark landed on Mt. Ararat, rather it says it had rested on the
"mountains of Ararat."
The Bible gives the region where it was rested, not the name of the "mount."
"Mountains" is plural and may refer to an area or region.
No comments:
Post a Comment