A Mysterious 3,000-Year-Old Castle Has Been Found Under a Lake in Turkey

Alright, folks, this type of thing is one of my favorite types of archaeological discoveries because it shows us (and reminds us) just how much the topography of the earth has changed over the years or relatively modern human habitation.

Set your sights on Lake Van in Turkey:

Sunken cities are typically the stuff of legend, but now archaeologists have found the real thing hiding deep within Lake Van in Turkey.

After a decade of searching the Middle East's second largest lake, the home of a lost kingdom has been found hundreds of metres beneath the surface.

Archaeologists from the Van Yüzüncü Yıl University announced the incredible discovery - a vast 3,000-year-old castle preserved deep within the lake in amazing condition.

Science Alert

This castle is believed to have belonged to the Urartu civilization (known in the Bible as "Ararat," or Noah's Ark fame), which existed in the area of Lake Van and surrounding areas between about 2,600 and 2,900 years ago.

Wiki Image
An interesting thing of note is that this discovery was not even close to what they were fishing for in the lake:

Tahsin Ceylan, head of the diving team on the project, first came in search of the Lake Van Monster, but uncovered a lost city instead.

So, searching for a lake monster, and they discover a lost, well-preserved castle at least (if claims are correct) 2,500 years old. And to me, the icing on the cake is that when they embarked on their journey, there were rumors of a (or some) structure(s) under the water, but that museum officials and archaeologists said that there was nothing there to be found:

]"There was a rumour that there might be something under the water but most archaeologists and museum officials told us that we won't find anything," [Tahsin Ceylan] told Daily Sabah.

This is a fascinating find--here we have the ability to consider past climate changes, examine a well-preserved archaeological find, and learn more about ancient cultures than we knew before.

I don't know about anyone else, but I get excited about this type of thing. I hope that you do, too.

Disappointingly, there are not any actual pictures from the discovery that I could find (I think that the image in the link is from a different underwater discovery), so if anyone finds any actual pictures, please share, and I will do the same later.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Cool find . I wonder if this data somehow connects to this www.abovetopsecret.com... I guess not finding a ancient city could mean its in the drink now .

Very interesting. But what gets me is how do they come to the conclusion it's 3000 years old. Is it because they only go back to the Uratu era because they haven't found an older civilization to attribute it to as they don't say they've found any identifying artifacts? I think the thing to look for was when the depression that is the lake, was dry land.
Just to throw speculation into the mix, a lot of sunken building date back to when the ice age trapped trillions of gallons of water leaving the whole planets seas a 100 feet lower than today and that was 11000 to 16000 years ago.

Maybe they'll find this:

Yes, its hard to see what they've found to actually date the place.


Not surprising though. Building next to lakes was popular at all times in human history for the access it provided to transport and food.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

This is way cool! Only here on ATS!!

It would be really trippy if there are people still living somewhere in this city.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Very interesting. But what gets me is how do they come to the conclusion it's 3000 years old. Is it because they only go back to the Uratu era because they haven't found an older civilization to attribute it to as they don't say they've found any identifying artifacts?

The date is based on the youngest possible date for the site being 590 BCE when the Urartu were decimated by invading armies from Iran and then end of Urartu dominance in the area and it's associated with the Urartu Civ based on the similarity to other structures that are above water still and have been part of an ongoing archaeological dig for the last 25 years.

Here's some Info on the structures above water that are being excavated currently.

Looking at the levels of the lake over the last six thousand years, it seems that the lake wasn't that low after the glacier. It doesn't mean it is not of the time they are guessing at though. It can happen that a water reservour under ground sinks, emptying it's water until eventually the land is far under water.

I have seen pictures of an area at my uncles that shows how the land had dropped over fifty feet where his fields are. My other uncle said they used to toboggan down a hill and I kind of looked at him like he was crazy. He dug out a picture from long ago of him and my dad on that hill which is now gone. It is actually a big low spot there now. I am being conservative when I say fifty feet, I know from looking at the picture it was a minimum of fifty feet, it could have been up to a hundred feet.

The ground water there feeds the streams and a pond. It could have been a chunk of ice from the glacier that was forced under the ground and it eventually melted off and the ground settled. Or a covered frozen lake that had been left after the glacier left. Permafrost can also do that, we still had some of that here ten years back in a few spots, I haven't checked since then. The areas of permafrost were getting sparse, but that does not mean they are few, that is the ones they know of. We have springs coming out of the tops of hills around here, that could originate from frozen water which created reservoirs under the ground that are thawed or are thawing.

If that didn't happen, that castle would probably be pre-ice age in that area. That is possible too but only if you accept there may have been intelligent people who could build that stuff long ago.

Thanks for finding this! very interested in this stuff, I believe theres alot of history off shore and in the depths of lakes and seas! so cool

a reply to: crayzeed

Good questions...that's why I made sure to note that they 'believe' it to be from the Urartu civilization. From everything I've read, it doesn't go into very much detail concerning the amount or type of studies done on it thus far, so it could just be an educated guess given what is known about the level of the lake throughout history and its location.

a reply to: lostbook

People, or Merpeople?

a reply to: rickymouse

Those are all good points, and I certainly think that things found by archaeologists can and, in some cases, should be attributed to much older civilizations. The fact that it is so well-preserved, too, could be leading them to thinking that it's younger than it actually is.

But honestly, I think that it's all just as educated a guess as it can be at this point.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
past climate changes

[sarcasm]No, climate is only changing now due to humans burning fossil fuels! Climate change isn't naturally occuring! You're an AGW denier! [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, really cool thread. I love stuff like this.

originally posted by: Painterz
Yes, its hard to see what they've found to actually date the place.


Not surprising though. Building next to lakes was popular at all times in human history for the access it provided to transport and food.

And security. Look at Mont. St. Michel in France. They built a complete cathedral, monastery and village town all on one island that is surrounded by water at high tide.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Looking at the levels of the lake over the last six thousand years, it seems that the lake wasn't that low after the glacier. It doesn't mean it is not of the time they are guessing at though. It can happen that a water reservour under ground sinks, emptying it's water until eventually the land is far under water.

I have seen pictures of an area at my uncles that shows how the land had dropped over fifty feet where his fields are. My other uncle said they used to toboggan down a hill and I kind of looked at him like he was crazy. He dug out a picture from long ago of him and my dad on that hill which is now gone. It is actually a big low spot there now. I am being conservative when I say fifty feet, I know from looking at the picture it was a minimum of fifty feet, it could have been up to a hundred feet.

The ground water there feeds the streams and a pond. It could have been a chunk of ice from the glacier that was forced under the ground and it eventually melted off and the ground settled. Or a covered frozen lake that had been left after the glacier left. Permafrost can also do that, we still had some of that here ten years back in a few spots, I haven't checked since then. The areas of permafrost were getting sparse, but that does not mean they are few, that is the ones they know of. We have springs coming out of the tops of hills around here, that could originate from frozen water which created reservoirs under the ground that are thawed or are thawing.

If that didn't happen, that castle would probably be pre-ice age in that area. That is possible too but only if you accept there may have been intelligent people who could build that stuff long ago.

Imagine if they had originally built a village around a small spring that was actually a sinkhole, then built a well around that, built defensive walls around the town, then a castle. Then all the water they take out of the sinkhole/well causes the land to sink.

a reply to: stormcell

I have a hard time thinking that, if that's the case, that they would be describing it as being very well-preserved.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: rickymouse

Those are all good points, and I certainly think that things found by archaeologists can and, in some cases, should be attributed to much older civilizations. The fact that it is so well-preserved, too, could be leading them to thinking that it's younger than it actually is.

But honestly, I think that it's all just as educated a guess as it can be at this point.

I read that the water in that lake is somewhat salty. If it is cold, it could be well preserved I think but I saw nothing about what temp it is. In freshwater things tend to last longer. Things deteriorate slower in low oxygen lakes too, being this has no rivers feeding it there could be a chance that that is the case, fed by springs.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Painterz
Yes, its hard to see what they've found to actually date the place.


Not surprising though. Building next to lakes was popular at all times in human history for the access it provided to transport and food.

And security. Look at Mont. St. Michel in France. They built a complete cathedral, monastery and village town all on one island that is surrounded by water at high tide.

Most castles are built on high points.

The 3,000 year old remains of an ancient fortification have been discovered at the bottom of Turkey's largest lake. Divers exploring Lake Van discovered the incredibly well preserved wall of a castle, thought to have been built by the Urartu civilisation


The castle, as well as a number of villages and settlements in the area, were built at a time when water levels were much lower than they are today

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: rickymouse
Looking at the levels of the lake over the last six thousand years, it seems that the lake wasn't that low after the glacier. It doesn't mean it is not of the time they are guessing at though. It can happen that a water reservour under ground sinks, emptying it's water until eventually the land is far under water.

I have seen pictures of an area at my uncles that shows how the land had dropped over fifty feet where his fields are. My other uncle said they used to toboggan down a hill and I kind of looked at him like he was crazy. He dug out a picture from long ago of him and my dad on that hill which is now gone. It is actually a big low spot there now. I am being conservative when I say fifty feet, I know from looking at the picture it was a minimum of fifty feet, it could have been up to a hundred feet.

The ground water there feeds the streams and a pond. It could have been a chunk of ice from the glacier that was forced under the ground and it eventually melted off and the ground settled. Or a covered frozen lake that had been left after the glacier left. Permafrost can also do that, we still had some of that here ten years back in a few spots, I haven't checked since then. The areas of permafrost were getting sparse, but that does not mean they are few, that is the ones they know of. We have springs coming out of the tops of hills around here, that could originate from frozen water which created reservoirs under the ground that are thawed or are thawing.

If that didn't happen, that castle would probably be pre-ice age in that area. That is possible too but only if you accept there may have been intelligent people who could build that stuff long ago.

Imagine if they had originally built a village around a small spring that was actually a sinkhole, then built a well around that, built defensive walls around the town, then a castle. Then all the water they take out of the sinkhole/well causes the land to sink.

They talk about the great flood, most of that water came out of the earth itself. What if there was a major event on earth which shook the crust all up and water gushed out of the buried ground aquifers? That was supposed to occur around six thousand bc. Maybe there was a big lake on top of the glacier too, and that broke and contributed to flooding around that area of Europe. There are a lot of possible things that can explain things. But if something opened that aquifer, it could fill that area quickly, within five to ten years.