The Durupinar formation does not match the shape of the Biblical description of the Ark - which was a large, floating rectangular box. It did not have curved sides, or a shaped bow / stern. Would be a marvel if it were the Ark, but not likely. It certainly doesn't match what Ed Davis swore that he saw, that which he passed a polygraph claiming he saw the Ark. Whatever is under the Durupinar formation is very unlikely to be the Biblical Ark. Maybe it's Gilgamesh's boat?
——>The Ark had no need of anchors, stone or otherwise. It wasn’t a ship - it was a floating barge, with no means of propulsion or navigation. It went where God’s hand pushed it. Boats hadn’t been invented yet - why would there be anchors?
They were used as BALLAST, not as a typical modern anchor.
Ark: 450ft long, 75ft wide, 45ft high. 3 stories tall with a door on the side. Also had a roof over it.
Compare with the ship/boat Edmund Fitzgerald: 729ft long, 75 ft wide, 39ft high. (and absolutely had ballast and a shaped bow)
Noah's ark "probably" looked a lot like the Edmund Fitzgerald with plenty of ballast (anchor/drogue) stones hanging off of it. They were cut as the waters receded and dry land appeared...ark came to rest.
These were more like sea anchors. They were deployed off of each side of a vessel to stabilize it in heavy seas. All modern vessels use them to minimize the side to side roll.
Especially when going slow or sitting still and fishing or trolling slowly.
This is the same principal. These stones hung off opposite sides of a vessel to keep side to side roll to a minimum.