Other Proposed Sites
A comparative file for locations outside the three primary dossiers: alternative mountain identifications, regional traditions, modern claims and proposals that deserve documentation without automatic endorsement.
Comparative file
Beyond the Three Main Contenders
In this dossier
ArkSearch does not let famous candidates erase the wider history. Some alternative locations come from old geographic traditions; others are recent proposals built around topography, satellite imagery or reinterpretations of ancient names.
Armenian Highland Sites
Locations associated with Ararat/Urarṭu geography that are not the summit of modern Mount Ararat.
Neighboring Peaks
Proposals involving other peaks in eastern Turkey, the Caucasus and adjacent highlands.
Remote-Sensing Claims
Sites proposed primarily through aerial, satellite or topographic resemblance rather than long historical tradition.
Nakhchivan & Related Traditions
Regional names and Flood traditions that have been linked to Noah in historical or modern interpretation.
Iranian Proposals
Modern claims in western Iran and the Zagros region assessed against text, geology, provenance and published field evidence.
What Makes a Stronger Case?
Stronger proposals combine traceable historical sources, coherent geography, site-specific evidence, and claims that can be independently tested.
Candidate Catalog / Unequal Evidence
Miscellaneous Sites & Claims
These cases do not belong in one evidentiary bucket. Some are ancient named mountains, some are parallel Flood traditions, some are later Noah pilgrimage sites, and some are modern Ark proposals built from geology or remote sensing.
Open the full candidate catalogAncient names, regional traditions, and modern proposals
Mount Lubar
Jubilees gives a specific name that Genesis does not: Noah’s Ark rests on Mount Lubar, and Noah later plants his vineyard there. Modern scholarship also discusses Qumran material connected with the Lubar tradition.
An ancient Jewish text explicitly names the mountain and still places it inside the broader Ararat region.
No modern mountain has been securely identified as Lubar. The text gives a historical name, not a recoverable GPS coordinate.
Mount Baris
Josephus quotes Nicolaus describing a “great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris” where a man carried in an ark came ashore and timber was said to survive.
The description supplies a named mountain plus a geographic marker—Minyas/Mannai—rather than merely saying “Armenia.”
Baris has never been identified securely. Some writers equate it with Masis/modern Ararat; others connect the passage more broadly with the Corduene/Qardu tradition. The source itself does not settle the modern identification.
Nimuš / Nisir
Tablet XI has Utnapishtim’s boat come to rest on Mount Nimuš, traditionally read Nisir. Scholars have often associated the ancient Nisir range south of the Lower Zab with the Piramagrun/Pir Omar Gudrun area.
It is a genuine ancient Flood-landing mountain in the Mesopotamian literary tradition, and the ancient Nisir geography can be discussed historically.
Utnapishtim is not simply Noah under another place-name. Using Nisir as the biblical landing place requires a separate argument about the relationship between the Babylonian and Genesis traditions.
Apamea Kibotos
Apamea in Phrygia developed a striking Noah tradition. Roman provincial coins depict an ark-like chest marked with Noah’s name, a man and woman, a dove and other Flood imagery. Nineteenth-century archaeology also recorded the local tradition.
The coins are material evidence that a Noah/Flood tradition was locally established by the Roman period—not a modern invention.
Apamea lies far outside the Ararat/Urartu geography of Genesis 8:4. The evidence is strongest for reception history and local sacred geography, not for the Ark’s actual landing site.
Nakhchivan
Nakhchivan preserves traditions of Noah settling or being buried there after the Flood. Nineteenth-century travelers and local investigators describe a Noah tomb shrine; a modern mausoleum now marks the traditional location.
The tradition is a real part of the region’s religious landscape and is documented before modern Ark tourism.
The popular derivations of “Nakhchivan” as “place of descent,” “first stop” or “Noah’s settlement” are disputed folk etymologies. Historical forms of the place-name predate those explanations.
Gamigaya & İlandağ
Local folklore connects Gamigaya—literally framed today as “ship-rock”—with surviving Ark remains, while other Nakhchivan legends say the Ark struck or touched İlandağ. Azerbaijan’s 2024 UNESCO tentative-list submission explicitly records the Gamigaya oral tradition.
The tradition is geographically specific and officially documented as living cultural heritage.
The UNESCO record documents folklore; it does not date the tradition to antiquity or validate physical Ark remains. The petroglyph landscape must be interpreted independently of the later Noah story.
Sabalan / Savalon
Bob Cornuke and David Halbrook proposed Sabalan as part of a widened “mountains of Ararat” geography in In Search of the Lost Mountains of Noah. Cornuke later moved away from Sabalan after searching there and promoted a different Iranian candidate.
Sabalan is a major high mountain relatively near the historic Armenian/Urartian world and therefore generated a geographic argument rather than a purely visual anomaly claim.
No old Ark tradition or archaeological evidence ties the mountain specifically to Noah, and critics argue the proposed expansion of Ararat/Urartu into Iran is historically overextended.
Takht-e Suleiman Massif
After the Sabalan proposal, Cornuke’s BASE Institute investigated a high Alborz site near the Takht-e Suleiman/Alam Kuh massif and promoted dark, beam-like rock formations as possible mineralized Ark remains.
The proposal involved actual expeditions and physical examination rather than satellite imagery alone.
The site is hundreds of kilometers east of the historically secure Urartian core, has no documented ancient Ark tradition, and the beam-like forms were not established archaeologically as worked timber.
Western Zagros / Zard Kuh
Creation physicist Russell Humphreys argued from Genesis 11:2 that the post-Flood population traveled westward into Shinar and therefore began from a base camp east of southern Iraq. He proposed the western Zagros as the likely Ark region and singled out Zard Kuh as one visually promising high peak while explicitly allowing many other possibilities.
The proposal is built from an explicit biblical-geographic argument and identifies what would have to be true about travel from the landing region to Shinar.
It depends on disputed translation/narrative assumptions and does not provide an ancient local Ark tradition or physical archaeological evidence at Zard Kuh.
Kağızman Ridge
ICR geologist Tim Clarey proposed that the Ark grounded on a high paleo-ridge roughly 70 miles west of modern Mount Ararat. The argument comes from ICR’s Flood stratigraphic model: Clarey places Ark grounding near the end of the Zuni Megasequence and argues that modern Ararat rose later.
The proposal makes a specific geological prediction and keeps the biblical phrase “mountains of Ararat” regional rather than equating it automatically with the modern volcano.
It is a model-derived landing location rather than a place with ancient Ark tradition, remains, artifacts or direct field evidence of a vessel. Its chronology depends on ICR’s particular Flood-geology framework.
Claims Ledger / Comparative File
Claims That Need Their Own Category
Some Ark claims are not really alternate landing sites at all. They are artifacts, place-name arguments, maps or traditions that are frequently recruited into a location argument after the fact.
| Date | Site / claim | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| 2nd c. BC | Jubilees names Lubar. Noah’s vineyard is planted on the mountain where the Ark rested, “Lubar, one of the mountains of Ararat.” | A genuine ancient Jewish landing-name tradition; modern identification unresolved. Ancient textual evidence |
| 1st c. BC / AD | Nicolaus names Baris. Preserved in Josephus as a great mountain above Minyas in Armenia. | Historical evidence for a named Armenian Ark mountain, but Baris cannot yet be mapped securely to a modern peak. Ancient geographic claim |
| Ancient Mesopotamia | Gilgamesh names Nimuš/Nisir. Utnapishtim’s vessel grounds there. | Primary comparative Flood geography. It should not be silently converted into the Genesis landing site. Parallel tradition |
| 2nd–3rd c. AD | Apamea coins depict Noah and an ark. | Strong evidence for an ancient localized Noah tradition in Phrygia; weak evidence for the biblical landing place because the geography conflicts with Genesis’s Ararat region. Reception / sacred geography |
| 19th c.+ | Nakhchivan “Noah tomb” and descent-name traditions. | The shrine tradition is historically documented; the popular etymology of Nakhchivan as “first descent” is not secure historical linguistics. Documented later tradition |
| Modern | Gamigaya “ship-rock” and Ark remains folklore. | Living oral tradition now documented by UNESCO’s tentative-list submission. No dated archaeological context connects the petroglyph complex to Noah’s vessel. Cultural tradition |
| 2001–2006 | Iranian Ark shift: Sabalan → Takht-e Suleiman massif. | Documented modern expedition proposals whose geographic and geological interpretations remain unverified; the change of candidate itself belongs in the history of the claim. Modern proposal |
| 2011 | Western Zagros / Zard Kuh. Russell Humphreys argues that Genesis 11:2 points to a post-Flood base camp east of Shinar and therefore to the western Zagros, mentioning Zard Kuh as one candidate. | A clearly stated modern biblical-geography hypothesis; no ancient Zard Kuh Ark tradition or physical Ark evidence is offered. Model-derived proposal |
| 2019 | Kağızman Ridge. Tim Clarey argues from ICR’s Flood stratigraphy that a high paleo-ridge west of modern Ararat formed at the time he assigns to Ark grounding. | A specific creation-geology hypothesis with testable model assumptions; not an archaeological discovery claim and not supported by an old local landing tradition. Geological-model proposal |
| 2024–2026 | “Babylonian map gives directions to Noah’s Ark.” Irving Finkel drew attention to a damaged passage on BM 92687 involving a parsiktu-sized object in an outer region, while Urartu appears elsewhere on the map. | The Babylonian World Map is real and names Urartu; the British Museum describes the reverse as broken and largely unintelligible. Reading the parsiktu passage as directions to surviving Flood-vessel remains is an interpretive reconstruction, not a literal label saying “Noah’s Ark here.” Artifact real / interpretation debated |
Chronology / Comparative Sites
How the “Other Sites” File Developed
The miscellaneous history stretches from ancient named mountains to twenty-first-century media claims. Seeing them chronologically prevents a recent proposal from borrowing antiquity from an unrelated older tradition.
Nimuš / Nisir
The Babylonian Flood hero Utnapishtim lands on a named mountain in a parallel literary tradition.
Jubilees names Lubar
A Jewish retelling specifies Mount Lubar as one of the mountains of Ararat.
Baris enters the historical record
Nicolaus of Damascus, quoted by Josephus, preserves a named Armenian mountain and relic tradition.
Apamea mints Noah imagery
Roman provincial coins show that Noah and the Ark had become part of Apamea’s local civic/religious identity.
Nakhchivan tomb tradition is documented
Travelers and local writers record a shrine identified as Noah’s tomb and associated descent traditions.
Sabalan enters modern Ark literature
Cornuke and Halbrook argue for a northern-Iran extension of the mountains of Ararat.
BASE shifts to the Alborz
Cornuke promotes a Takht-e Suleiman-area formation after earlier Sabalan searching.
Humphreys proposes the western Zagros
Russell Humphreys argues from the route to Shinar that the Ark region should lie east of southern Iraq and suggests Zard Kuh as one possible high peak.
Clarey proposes Kağızman Ridge
Tim Clarey uses ICR’s Flood-stratigraphic model to argue for a paleo-ridge west of modern Mount Ararat rather than the volcanic summit itself.
The Babylonian World Map goes viral
Finkel’s discussion of the map’s damaged outer-region text is recast in popular media as ancient “directions to Noah’s Ark.”
Personnel File / Comparative Proposals
People Behind the Other Claims
The miscellaneous file includes ancient transmitters, modern field proponents, historians who documented regional traditions, and scholars whose interpretation created a new claim. Inclusion records influence, not endorsement.
Open full personnel ledgerPeople behind the comparative claims
Nicolaus of Damascus
Open field note
Nicolaus’s lost universal history survives in fragments. Josephus preserves his account of a great mountain called Baris above Minyas in Armenia where a flood survivor in an ark was said to have landed and timber remained.
D. G. Hogarth
Open field note
Hogarth’s visit to Celaenae-Apamea records the extraordinary local Ark tradition and notes both the coins and the ruined church that preserved the Noah association in Phrygia.
Frédéric Dubois de Montpéreux
Open field note
Dubois de Montpéreux was among the nineteenth-century travelers to describe the Noah tomb tradition in Nakhchivan. His account helps distinguish a documented shrine tradition from later claims that it proves the landing site.
K. A. Nikitin
Open field note
Nikitin recorded local Noah traditions, the tomb shrine and stories linking Noah with Nakhchivan in a detailed nineteenth-century regional description. His work is a key source for the age of the documented local tradition.
Bob Cornuke
Open field note
Cornuke first promoted Sabalan/Savalon as part of the mountains of Ararat, then shifted to a site in the Takht-e Suleiman/Alborz region after later expeditions. The movement between candidates is itself important to the history of the modern claim.
Russell Humphreys
Open field note
Humphreys proposed that biblical travel clues point to a landing region in the western Zagros east of southern Iraq, mentioning Zard Kuh as one possible peak rather than claiming a discovered Ark site.
Tim Clarey
Open field note
Clarey proposed Kağızman Ridge west of Mount Ararat based on ICR’s Flood-stratigraphic model and his view that the modern Ararat volcano formed after the Ark had grounded.
Irving Finkel
Open field note
Finkel’s British Museum discussion highlighted the map’s outer-region text and a rare parsiktu expression associated with Flood-vessel literature. Popular headlines transformed that nuanced interpretation into claims that the map gives directions to Noah’s Ark.
Archive Desk / Comparative Sources
Documents Behind the Miscellaneous Claims
The easiest way to inflate an alternative Ark claim is to quote a place-name without its date, genre or geography. These are the sources ArkSearch uses to keep the cases separated.
Open full source dossierSources behind the miscellaneous claims
Mount Lubar
Jubilees explicitly says Noah planted his vineyard on the mountain where the Ark rested, “Lubar, one of the Ararat Mountains.” Modern scholarship treats Lubar as an important independent landing-name tradition whose modern location remains unresolved.
Nicolaus of Damascus — Mount Baris
Josephus preserves Nicolaus’s statement that a great mountain called Baris stood above Minyas in Armenia and was associated with a flood survivor in an ark and preserved timber.
Nimuš / Nisir
The Babylonian Flood account gives Utnapishtim’s vessel its own landing mountain. Older scholarship often localized Nisir south of the Lower Zab near Piramagrun/Pir Omar Gudrun.
Apamea Kibotos Coins
Roman provincial coins from Apamea depict Noah, an ark-like chest and Flood imagery. Hogarth’s nineteenth-century site study also records the long-lived local Ark tradition.
Place-name and Noah Tomb Traditions
Encyclopaedia Iranica traces the historical forms of Nakhchivan independently of Noah folk etymology. Nineteenth-century descriptions, however, show that a real Noah tomb pilgrimage tradition existed locally by that period.
Gamigaya UNESCO Tentative List
Azerbaijan’s submission describes local oral folklore that Ark remains were preserved at Gamigaya and explicitly explains the “rock-ship” name through that tradition.
Iranian Ark Proposals
Cornuke’s work moved from Sabalan to the Takht-e Suleiman/Alborz region. Gordon Franz’s contemporary critique reconstructs the books, expedition claims and geographic objections in detail.
Humphreys — Western Zagros
Russell Humphreys argues from Genesis 11:2 that Noah’s descendants traveled westward into Shinar from a nearby base camp east of southern Iraq, placing the likely Ark region in the western Zagros. He singles out Zard Kuh as one possible high peak while acknowledging other possibilities.
Clarey — Kağızman Ridge
Tim Clarey proposes that a paleo-ridge west of modern Ararat was emergent at the point in ICR’s Flood-stratigraphic model that he assigns to Genesis 8:4, while the modern volcanic cone formed later.
Babylonian Map of the World
British Museum 92687 names Urartu on the mapped world and contains damaged descriptions of outer mythic regions. Irving Finkel’s 2024 interpretation links one rare measurement term to Flood-vessel literature; popular media strengthened that into “directions to Noah’s Ark.”
ArkSearch Assessment
How the Miscellaneous Claims Rank
Assessment
The strongest entries in this file are not necessarily the strongest Ark candidates. Lubar, Baris, Nisir and Apamea are historically valuable because they prove that multiple named Flood/Ark geographies circulated in antiquity. Nakhchivan and Gamigaya preserve genuine regional Noah memory, but the securely documented forms of those traditions are much later. Sabalan and Takht-e Suleiman are modern proposals that must stand or fall on historical geography and physical evidence rather than borrowing authority from older traditions elsewhere.
Dossier Navigator / Interactive
Work the Case File
Move between the major evidence categories without losing the distinction between what is observed and what is inferred.
Catalog before dismissing
Alternative sites may preserve regional memories that are historically useful even if they never become strong archaeological candidates. ArkSearch records them so the history of interpretation remains visible.
Test the place-name argument
Many proposals depend on identifying ancient regional names with modern topography. Those arguments need linguistic history, route geography and chronological control.
Remote sensing is a lead, not a verdict
Satellite anomalies and unusual landforms can justify investigation. They become evidence only when ground truth, geology and provenance support the visual interpretation.
Use one standard for every candidate
Other proposals should face the same evidentiary framework as Ağrı Dağı, Durupınar and Cudi Dağı: documentation, corroboration, alternative explanation and reproducibility.
Continue the Investigation
Compare Before Concluding
Comparison Desk
Put an alternative proposal beside one of the principal cases and compare evidence type, strengths and weaknesses.
→
Research Library
Track the people, publications and geographic assumptions behind competing proposals.
→
Evidence Standard
Apply the same evidentiary rules to every proposed location.
→