(Ancient settlement of Idnakar, IX-XIII centuries)*

Basic approaches to complex geophysical research

The most commonly used methods for geophysical research of archaeological sites are electrical, magnetic, and seismic surveys. In recent years, the possibilities of archeogeophysics have significantly expanded due to the use of ground-penetrating radars. However, none of these methods is universal. This is due to the fact that they differ in the registered physical fields. Consequently, the effectiveness of their application largely depends on the physical properties of the search objects and the surrounding soil, their contrast and size, as well as the geological structure of the area. In addition, the measurement results are significantly affected by interfering factors of various origins - heterogeneity of the physical properties of soils, a high level of natural and man-made interference [Nikitin and Khmelevskoy, 2004, p. 236]. A significant role is played by the characteristics of the measuring equipment used (for example, speed, noise immunity, data storage, multielectrode).

Each of these methods is effective in identifying only certain types of archaeological sites (Stanyukovich, 1997; Geophysical survey..., 1995). For example, ground-penetrating radar can confidently capture large-sized objects that are quite contrasting in their physical properties with the environment, such as stone structures, brickwork, columns, pavements, basements and cellars. When searching for local archaeological sites of small size, as well as when identifying closely located objects, this method is less effective. In addition, ground-penetrating radar has significant limitations on the depth of research and is effective only when working on dry sandy soils. Magnetic exploration allows you to record the remains of furnaces, forges, burnt structures, as well as traces of blacksmithing. Less confidently identified archaeological sites such as walls, roads, trenches, wooden structures," spots " of dwellings without masonry. Electrical exploration is successfully used in the study of multi-time furnaces, hearths and pits of dwellings, wall plinths, the structure of defensive structures, architectural remains, as well as in the detection of underground voids and violations of the soil layer, but when searching for objects made of wood and ground burials without intra-grave structures, difficulties arise-

* The research is carried out with the financial support of the Program of Fundamental Research of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences " Adaptation of peoples and cultures to changes in the natural environment, social and technological transformations "(project "Modeling the structure and stages of formation of the Idnakar settlement based on the results of interdisciplinary research").

page 114

material difficulties. The reliability of interpretation of archaeological and geophysical data largely depends on geological and natural conditions [Smekalova et al., 2000, pp. 130-133]. In other words, there is no geophysical method that allows you to identify all possible archaeological sites and has no restrictions on the conditions of application.

The main problems in interpreting the data of archeogeophysics are related to these circumstances. First, due to the objective limitations of the chosen geophysical method, archaeological objects of a certain type may not be recorded on the geophysical "map", as a result of which the reconstruction of the monument layout according to the data of archeogeophysics will be incomplete. Secondly, depending on the conditions of occurrence in the cultural layer (thickness and composition of the overlapping layer, filling of the object, etc.), the same archaeological objects may be reflected differently on the geophysical "map". At the same time, verification excavations at sites corresponding to key, most significant geophysical anomalies (which is a mandatory element of the methodology of archaeological and geophysical research) do not always provide an unambiguous archaeological interpretation of geophysical data.

Therefore, since the 1960s, Russian scientific practice has raised the question of developing a specialized measurement technique based on the integration of geophysical methods (Shilik, 1965). This approach is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of archaeological and geophysical research in the study of a monument whose cultural layer contains objects of various types. When forming a set of methods, the influence of factors that distort the measurement results (electromagnetic fields, pits and ditches, metal debris, etc.) should also be taken into account.Later, there was a tendency for long-term complex geophysical research, which allows us to develop and test measurement methods and methods for interpreting the results for certain categories of archaeological sites. This involved consistently applying a group of geophysical methods to one site, comparing the data obtained, and evaluating the potential of each of the methods used. The most striking example of successful complex archaeogeophysical research is the study of the settlement of Panskoe I (Shcheglov, 1985), ground burial grounds of the North Caucasus (Shraibman et al., 1988), and the necropolis of Chersonesos (Antonova et al., 1979]. Currently, this area is actively developing within the framework of interdisciplinary studies of archaeological sites in Siberia and the Altai, for example, the ancient settlement of the transition period from Bronze to iron Chicha I (Chicha..., 2004) and the Sopka-2 burial ground (Molodin et al., 2001).

Of course, the use of a set of geophysical methods can significantly increase the information content of archaeological and geophysical measurements. However, given the current situation and limited resources of expeditions, such integration is very difficult to implement in practice. Therefore, a different approach to archaeogeophysical research is proposed - making measurements using several modifications of the chosen electrometry method. This variant of integration is based on the fact that different configurations of the measuring system are effective in identifying objects and geological structures of various types [Elektrorazvedka..., 1989, p. 174, Table VI. 1]. The configuration of the measuring system is understood as the relative location of the supply and measuring electrodes in the studied area. Consequently, the method of complex electrometric studies of the cultural layer can be based on an adaptive choice of measuring equipment and measurement algorithm, depending on the task at hand, the type of archaeological objects and the structure of the cultural layer. This method requires a significant (more than 10-fold) increase in the volume of field measurements. For its effective application, modern multi-electrode equipment is necessary. During the experimental testing of the method of complex measurements, an automated multi-electrode electrical exploration complex "Idnakar" was used, which allows you to implement various measurement methods with the same location of the electrodes on the research site [Zhurbin, Zverev, 1998].

The effectiveness of this approach was shown in geophysical studies of the medieval settlement of Idnakar, located in Udmurtia (Ivanova, 1998; Ivanova and Zhurbin, 2006). Electrometric measurements were carried out on the basis of the archaeological expedition of the Udmurt Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Head of the expedition, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor M. G. Ivanova). Idnakar is one of the ancient settlements that emerged in the middle reaches of the Cheptsy River at the end of the 1st millennium and existed from the end of the 9th to the 12th-13th centuries. [Ivanova, 2000, p. 179-180]. They are associated with the names of the heroes of the Udmurt epic.

Reconstruction of the layout of the Idnakar settlement

At the first stage of geophysical research, the main task was to reconstruct the layout of the part of the settlement that was not supposed to be used for the construction of new settlements.-

page 115

Fig. 1. Plan of the Idnakar settlement.

1). Based on electrometric data, a map was constructed of the location of archaeological sites that determine the structure and layout of the settlement, such as fortifications, mud-brick construction sites, and pits (Ivanova and Zhurbin, 2006). A fairly confident interpretation of the identified anomalies is based on a comparison of the results of archaeological excavations and geophysical studies (Alekseev et al., 1995; Zhurbin and Zelinsky, 1999; Ivanova et al., 1998). The shape of the anomalies was analyzed, as well as their relative location, the presence of visible ordering (Figure 2). It was assumed that the anomaly configuration coincides with the actual shape of the archaeological object in the plan.

For measurements focused on the reconstruction of the layout, the method of areal electrical profiling was used, which allows for layer-by-layer measurements [Zhurbin and Malyugin, 1998]. It is based on the geometric method of choosing the depth of research: the greater the distance between the supply electrodes, the greater the volume of soil affects the measurement results. Therefore, each measured value can be conditionally correlated not only with the coordinates on the surface X and Y, but also with some effective depth Z (Figure 3). If a series of measurements is carried out at a constant distance between the supply electrodes, the resulting data array will reflect the geophysical "planigraphy" of the cultural layer. In the current data array, the effective depth zi is a constant value; the coordinate of the measurement point xi changes sequentially in the range [Xmin, Xmax], yi-in the range [Ymin, Ymax]. By changing the distance between the supply electrodes and repeating the described algorithm for iterating over the coordinates xi and yi, we get a "planigraphy" of the cultural layer at a different depth Z. Thus, a consistent change in the effective depthzi provides the formation of a set of spatially ordered data arrays. The combination of these massifs allows us to pre-evaluate the change in the" planigraphy " of the monument in depth - the relative distribution of archaeological objects in the space of the cultural layer. Obviously, there is no unambiguous correspondence between archaeological planigraphic sections of the cultural layer and geophysical maps that model the distribution of resistivity in the horizontal plane at a given depth. The terms "geophysical planigraphy" and "geophysical stratigraphy" are introduced in this article only for the convenience of describing the methods of geophysical research.

The geophysical data obtained using the described method reflect a generalized, integral picture of the resistance distribution in the cultural layer. The problem is that when the effective depth is increased, Z is preserved in the form of-

page 116

2. Map of the distribution of apparent resistance in the central part of the Idnakar settlement (fragment).

influence of the upper soil layers on the results of current measurements. In other words, for a given effective depth zi, objects located in the depth range [0; zi] are detected, for an effective zi+1 zi+1], and so on.

As the research results have shown, the method of reconstruction of geophysical "planigraphy" is a high-speed and effective way to map the territory of archaeological sites. Its advantage is that the information obtained provides a reliable qualitative interpretation-identification

Figure 3. Spatial arrangement of a set of geophysical sections.

page 117

locations of various types of archaeological sites and a rough estimate of their depth. However, due to the generalized pattern of resistance distribution, the configuration of geophysical anomalies "averages" the shape of a real archaeological object. In addition, this technique does not allow for quantitative interpretation of the obtained data, i.e., modeling the location of archaeological objects in the cultural layer based on the study of the deep structure of the identified anomalies. Therefore, for a detailed reconstruction of the spatial distribution of resistivity, the data of geophysical "planigraphy" should be supplemented with information about the stratigraphy of the monument.

Reconstruction of geometric parameters of archaeological sites

At the site located in the central part of the ancient settlement, experimental studies were carried out aimed at developing the methodology of archaeological and geophysical measurements, which can be used for quantitative interpretation of geophysical data (Zhurbin et al., 2006). The task was to determine the size and location of key archaeological sites on a vertical section of the cultural layer. The results of preliminary "planigraphic" measurements made it possible to assume the presence of such objects that determine the structure of the Idnakar settlement as a rampart, moat, and pits on the experimental site (see Fig. 2, Plate 1). They differ significantly in the composition of soils and spatial location in the cultural layer. Therefore, based on the results of analyzing the data of "stratigraphic" geophysical studies, it is possible to assess the reliability of reconstructing the geometric parameters of archaeological objects of various types. The materials of excavations conducted near the experimental tablet in 1992-1994 were used as verification samples (see Fig. 2). Extrapolations were made from the following data:-

4. Reconstruction of the structure of the cultural layer on plate 1, a-geophysical "planigraphy", depth range 0.0-0.35 m; b-geophysical "stratigraphy"

page 118

The compilation of archaeological data on the composition, geometric characteristics, and structure of the cultural layer was necessary to assess the validity of the interpretation of geophysical data.

The measurement method assumed the use of two modifications of electrical exploration in the same area-electrotomography and area electro profiling. The interpretation was based on a joint analysis of the results of "planigraphic" and "stratigraphic" geophysical measurements, which were carried out using a single coordinate grid. Electrotomography allows studying the stratigraphy of the cultural layer. This technique is aimed at quantitative two-dimensional interpretation of data obtained by the resistance method (Bobachev et al., 1996; Dahlin, 2001; Griffiths and Barker, 1993). To a first approximation, it can be represented as performing a series of measurements on a single profile with different effective depths. The result of processing and interpreting the obtained data is a geoelectric section - a map of the possible distribution of resistivity in the vertical YZ plane located along the selected profile (see 3). From the point of view of information representation, there is a direct analogy with a set of stratigraphic sections along the brows of an archaeological excavation. It should be noted that due to the ambiguity of the geophysical interpretation, the obtained geoelectric sections should be evaluated only as a probable option.

According to the results of "planigraphic" measurements (Fig. 4, a), the location and contours of the internal defensive rampart are clearly determined (the area of low resistance in the western part of the site - sq. m). U9-10). According to archaeological data, no later than the 11th century, the inner rampart lost its significance, the upper part of it was excavated, and industrial facilities were placed in the filling of the moat [Ivanova, 1999, pp. 107-108]. Currently, the inner rampart is not visually traced; its contour has been restored based on the results of geophysical studies confirmed by excavations (Ivanova et al., 1998). At all sounding depths, a "gap" in the anomaly (sq. Y9) and a slight displacement of the southern part of the shaft fragment in the western direction are recorded. 4, b) revealed the causes of distortions in the shape of the "planigraphic" anomaly. All" stratigraphic " profiles show the destruction of the monolithic rock mass by late insets. At the same time, the part of it located in the center of the experimental site is destroyed to a greater extent. It is obvious that such a significant change in the geometric characteristics of the shaft base determines the "gap" in the anomaly on the "planigraphic" geophysical map. In addition, the "stratigraphic" sections reflect the close-to-vertical boundary of the inner side of the shaft.

Probably, these violations are related to the archaeological excavations of the Idnakar settlement, which were conducted by S. G. Matveev in 1927-1928. To clarify the nature of the inner rampart, the researcher laid trenches along its inner and outer slopes, and made cross-sections in three places [Ivanova, 1998, p. 9, 18-19]. Trenches and one of the cross sections were recorded by M. G. Ivanova during excavations of the ancient settlement in 1992-1994. In the course of these archaeological investigations, some features of the excavations of the 1920s became clear. In particular, the trench located on the inner side of the rampart has been brought to the level of the continental layer in almost all areas*, and the trench laid along the outer slope is relatively shallow (on average, about 1.0 m) and usually covers only the upper part of the cultural strata at the border of the ramparts**. It is probably these circumstances that determine the specific geometry of the shaft recorded in "stratigraphic" geophysical studies : the vertical boundary of the inner side of the shaft is close to the vertical one, and the step - shaped boundary is close to the outer side (Fig.

According to the results of "planigraphic" geophysical studies, the moat of the inner line of defensive fortifications is practically not fixed, but its geometric characteristics are well reconstructed on "stratigraphic" sections (Fig. At the same time, you can estimate not only the width, but also the depth of the moat. The geometrical parameters of the base of the rampart and ditch, determined from "planigraphic" and "stratigraphic" geophysical data, are in good agreement with the results of excavations. According to archaeological data, the width of the preserved part of the rampart massif is 4.0-4.5 m, and the height of the preserved embankment is 1.0-1.3 m; the width of the moat is 7-8 m, it is deepened into the mainland by 1.5-1.6 m [Ibid., p. 22].

Thus, using geophysical methods, the geometric parameters of the fortifications of the inner line of the fortifications of the settlement were determined, and the configuration of late insets that destroyed the monolithic mass of the shaft was revealed. Ex-

* Ivanova M. G. Report on excavations of the Soldyr settlement of Idnakar in the Glazo district of the Udmurt Republic in 1992. Izhevsk, 1993. - Scientific and Branch Archive of the Institute of Nuclear Research of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Handwritten collection. Op. 2-n. D. 1113. Fig. 12-18.

* Ivanova M. G. Report on the excavations of the Soldyr settlement of Idnakar in the Glazo district of the Udmurt Republic in 1993. Izhevsk, 1994. - Scientific and Branch Archive of the Institute of Nuclear Research of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Handwritten collection. Op. 2-n. D. 1117. Fig. 10-16.

** Ivanova M. G. Report on excavations... in 1992; It is the same. Excavation report... in 1993.

page 119

experimental studies have shown that planigraphic "maps of apparent resistance" and vertical geoelectric sections complement each other. A comparative analysis of diverse geophysical information allows us to clarify the geometric parameters of objects and increase the reliability of reconstructing the layout of archaeological sites based on geophysical data. Nevertheless, the use of the described method does not allow us to fully solve the problem of spatial reconstruction of the cultural layer as a whole. The problem of "averaging" the shape of a real archaeological object during "planigraphic" measurements remains unsolved.

Spatial reconstruction of the cultural layer

To solve this problem, it is necessary to develop additional methods that will allow for" planigraphic " studies to exclude the influence of soil layers that overlap the desired archaeological site, i.e. to move from a qualitative analysis of measurement results ("planigraphic" map) to a quantitative interpretation (spatial model of the cultural layer).

For experimental studies, a site was selected in the northern part of the site of the settlement, adjacent to the slope of the hill (see Fig. 2, tablet 2). The results of preliminary measurements revealed an extended anomaly of low resistance along the slope between the inner and middle defensive ramparts (the line between sq. a30-i33). The shape, size and level of resistance in this area correspond to the parameters of the internal defensive shaft. In addition, four compactly located local anomalies of reduced resistance and sub-rectangular shape were recorded (e26-j26; i26-27, k26-27; k24; e24-23, j24-23). Similar in shape and resistance anomalies correspond to mud-brick platforms - the bases of residential and industrial structures in Idnakar. Despite the existence of direct analogies, an unambiguous archaeological interpretation of the "planigraphic" geophysical data is impossible. First, it is unlikely that additional defensive structures will be built along the steep, high slope of the korennaya coastal terrace promontory. Secondly, the compact arrangement of anomalies, presumably corresponding to the sites of structures, does not fully agree with the regularities of the orientation of structures and the layout of the settlement identified as a result of long - term archaeological excavations [Ivanova, 1998, pp. 81-85]. Experimental studies to test the method of spatial reconstruction of the cultural layer were necessary for reliable archaeological interpretation of geophysical data.

Complex studies included areal electro profiling, electrotomography (the methods discussed above), and three-dimensional surveying (Figure 5). In general, the measurement technique for three-dimensional surveying is similar to areal electro profiling: the coordinates of the measurement points xi, yi, and zi consistently change in the range of [Xmin, Xmax], [Ymin, Ymax], and [Zmin, respectively, Zmax] (see Figure 3). The difference is that the number of measurements that are carried out for several types of electrical exploration installations significantly increases. At the same time, as a result of quantitative interpretation, anomalies are detected that relate only to the specified range of changes in the effective depth: 0; Zmin], [Zmin,] ... [zi, zi+1]. Thus, the geophysical data of the three-dimensional survey do not reflect a generalized, integral picture of the resistance distribution in the cultural layer, but a layer-by-layer one.

On the territory of the experimental site, according to electrical profiling data, three anomalies were identified that presumably correspond to the mud-brick construction sites-sq. e26 - j26, i26-27, and e24-j24 (see Fig.5). A fragment of an extended anomaly is detected in the northwestern part. The profiles used for electrotomography measurements were arranged in such a way that each of the anomalies of interest intersected by two lines in mutually perpendicular directions. Fragments of two anomalies (sq. e26-f26; e24-f24) and a significant section of the interspinal (?) space are recorded on the subplate for three-dimensional shooting.

The most informative were the "stratigraphic" sections of the cultural layer along profiles 2 and 5 (Fig. 6). In particular, the anomaly in sq. e26-j26 is revealed on profile 2 as a homogeneous area of soil located in the range of 4.0 - 7.5 m from point 1 (see Fig. 5; 6, a), and on profile 5 - in the range of 15.0-19.0 m from point 3 (see Fig. 5; 6, b). At the same time, the geometrical characteristics of the object according to the results of "planigraphic" and "stratigraphic" geophysical studies are in good agreement with each other. A fairly confident archaeological interpretation of the anomaly is based on the data of long - term excavations [Ibid., pp. 30-31; Ivanova and Zhurbin, 2006, pp. 71-72]. The bases of the structures of the Idnakar settlement are densely packed platforms made of bright orange clay. Usually their first outlines are fixed directly under the sod layer and the clay mass can be traced up to

page 120

5. Map of the apparent drag distribution on the territory of experimental plate 2 (depth range 0.0-0.35 m), location of profiles and the three-dimensional survey area.

6. Geoelectric sections on the territory of experimental plate 2, a-profile 2; b-profile 5.

page 121

7. Map of the resistivity distribution based on the results of three-dimensional geophysical survey. Depth: a - 0.0-0.14 m; 6 - 0,14 - 0,30; b-0.30-0.49; d-0.49 - 0.71; d-0.71-0.95; e-0.95 - 1.24 m.

the continental layer. Despite the fact that periodically the adobe platforms were updated, in the absolute majority of cases their location practically did not change. The adobe base was updated and filled in, but the new building was built within the same boundaries. Consequently, the construction sites are almost homogeneous in terms of composition and structure. Thus, the object identified by complex geophysical data fully corresponds to the spatial and structural characteristics of the construction site. Therefore, the analysis of "planigraphic" and "stratigraphic" geophysical data allows us to interpret this local anomaly as a mud platform. Similarly, local anomalies are identified and interpreted in the i26 - 27 and e24-j24 areas (see Figs. 5, 6).

According to the results of geophysical studies, another feature of the structures on the ancient settlement is clearly traced - the leveling of the surface before creating an adobe platform. The use of this construction technique by the ancient population of Idnakar is confirmed by archaeological data (Ivanova, 1998, pp. 30-70). Usually, before the formation of a mud platform, the turf layer was removed; the base of the structure was located directly on the mainland layer. In some cases, the presence of paving stones made of tightly packed clay with sand was recorded.

It should be noted that the structure of the cultural layer of the ancient settlement is extremely heterogeneous: in the humus layer there are areas and layers of coal, ash, sandy loam, wood decay, etc. It is this complex and contrasting structure

page 122

they reflect geophysical data on the inter-core space.

No less interesting results were obtained in a complex analysis of the extended anomaly in the northwestern part of Plate 2 (see Figure 5). Based on geophysical data, it can be argued that this anomaly is generally caused by an increase in the level of the continental layer. On profile 2, such changes are recorded in the range of 18.0-25.5 m from point 1 (see Fig. 6, a). These features are also observed in the northern part of the geoelectric sections along profiles 1 and 3, as well as in the western part of profile 7 (see Fig. 5). The geoelectric section does not allow interpreting this section cultural layer as the base of the defensive rampart. In this case, the most interesting result is a fixed low clay mound (range 22.0-24.0 m from point 1, see Fig. 6, a). The cultural layer in this area is significantly more homogeneous than the inter-core space. Since the mound is located directly along the slope of the hill and is visible on all transverse profiles, it can be assumed that it was created by residents of the settlement. It is not possible to determine the purpose of this structure based on geophysical data alone.

The results of a three-dimensional geophysical survey (Figure 7) are in good agreement with the data of "stratigraphic" measurements. In particular, in the upper layers (Fig. 7a, b), an extremely heterogeneous, disordered structure is detected, and many small local inclusions of high resistance are detected. The distribution of resistivity at this level does not provide useful information, since it reflects the structure of the sod layer (see Fig. 6). As the depth of sounding increases (Fig. 7e, d), the areas of localization of the cultural layer in the intertidal space become more pronounced (range 3.0 - 4.0 m from point 1 on profile 2, see Fig. 6, a). The range of resistance variations is almost the same as in the upper layers; the decisive contribution belongs to the heterogeneous cultural layer. At a depth of 0.95 - 1.24 m, the cultural layer is not fixed (Fig. Fragments of construction sites buried in the continental layer are contrasted, and their shape is in good agreement with the data of planigraphic measurements (see Figure 5).

Conclusion

The main requirements for archaeological and geophysical measurements are the efficiency of research and correct interpretation of the obtained data. Obviously, the reliability of the results is largely determined by the measurement method and the use of equipment corresponding to the archaeological task. The developed hardware and methodological complex, which provides consistent application of area electro profiling, electrotomography and three-dimensional photography, fully meets the requirements.

The method of reconstruction of geophysical "planigraphy" is a high-speed and effective way to map the territory of archaeological sites. The results obtained provide a qualitative interpretation - identifying the location of archaeological objects of various types and assessing their relative distribution in the space of the cultural layer. The methods of electrotomography and three-dimensional surveying allow us to carry out a quantitative interpretation of the observed data, on the basis of which it is possible to reconstruct the deep structure of the identified anomalies and a fairly accurate assessment of the geometric parameters of archaeological sites.

A significant problem is that measurements using electrotomography and three-dimensional imaging methods are very time-consuming and require the use of modern, highly efficient multi-electrode equipment. That is why such studies are usually carried out not on the entire area under study, but only on key areas identified during the reconstruction of the monument layout based on" planigraphic " measurements.

As the testing of the complex technique at the medieval settlement of Idnakar has shown, carrying out measurements using several modifications of electrometry allows you to get a qualitatively new idea of the studied archaeological sites and reconstruct in detail the spatial structure of the cultural layer. It should be noted that the listed stages of geophysical research are rather a logical scheme than an unambiguous algorithm for geophysical measurements. This scheme defines the sequence of refinement of information about the cultural layer of an archaeological site, implemented using various measurement methods and methods of interpretation of geophysical data. At the same time, the stage that completes complex geophysical research is chosen based on the task of archaeological research and its overall strategy.

List of literature

Alekseev V. A., Zhurbin I. V., Zverev V. P., Ivanova M. G., Kulikov K. I. Some results of the use of an automated electrical exploration complex in Russia

page 123

Materialy issledovanii gorodishche Idnakar IX-XIII vv. - Izhevsk: UIIYAL UrO RAS, 1995. - pp. 131-141.

Antonova N. A., Glazunov V. V., Gots N. A., Shevnin V. A., Modin I. I., Belikov V. V., Urazaev N. I., Tarnopolskaya N. B., Ryzhov S. G. Geologo-geofizicheskie issledovaniya na nekropole Chersonese [Geological and geophysical research on the necropolis of Chersonese]. Nauka Publ., 1979, pp. 10-19.

Bobachev A. A., Modin I. N., Pervago E. V., Shevnin V. A. Mnogoelektrodnye elektricheskie zondirovaniya v usloviyakh horizontalno-neomogodnykh sred [Multielectrode electric sounding in conditions of horizontally inhomogeneous media]. - M.: AO "Geoinformmark", 1996. - Issue 2. - 50 p.

Zhurbin I. V., Bobachev A. A., Zverev V. P. Spatial reconstruction of the structure of the cultural layer of archaeological sites based on geophysical measurements (Idnakar settlement, IX-XIII centuries) / / Round table "Archeology and Geoinformatics": Collection of reports. [Electronic resource], Moscow: Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006, Issue 3. (CD-ROM.)

Zhurbin I. V., Zverev V. P. Mnogoelektrodny avtomatizirovannyy elektrorazvedochnyy kompleks [Multielectrode automated electrical exploration complex]. - 1998. - Vol. 8, N 1/2. - pp. 46-50.

Zhurbin I. V., Zelinsky A.V. Elektrometricheskie issledovaniya gorodishche Idnakar: metodika, modelirovanie i rekonstruktsiya arkheologicheskikh obektov [Electrometric studies of the Idnakar settlement: methodology, modeling and reconstruction of archaeological objects]. field simp. Izhevsk: UIIYAL Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999, pp. 215-229.

Ivanova M. G. Idnakar: Drevneudmurtskoe gorodishche IX-XIII vv. - Izhevsk: UIYAL UrB RAS, 1998. - 294 p.

Ivanova M. G. Drevneudmurtskoe gorodishche Idnakar: nekotorye itogi i perspektivy issledovanii [The Ancient Udmurt settlement of Idnakar: some results and prospects of research]. field simp. Izhevsk: UIIYAL Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999, pp. 103-110.

Ivanova M. G. Nauchnoe nasledie A. P. Smirnova i sovremennye problemy issledovaniya srednevekovykh pamyatnikov Udmurtii [The scientific heritage of A. P. Smirnov and modern problems of archeology of the Volga-Kamya: Materials of the Scientific Conference]. Moscow: GIM, 2000, pp. 177-183. .

Ivanova M. Kh., Zhurbin I. V. Opyt mezhdistsiplinarnykh issledovaniy drevneudmurt gorodishche Idnakar IX-XIII vv. [Experience of interdisciplinary research of the ancient Udmurt settlement Idnakar of the IX-XIII centuries]. - 2006. - N 2. - p. 68-79.

Ivanova M. G., Zhurbin I. V., Zelinsky A.V. Issledovanie planirovaniya gorodishcha Idnakar metodom elektrometrii (1991-1997) [Investigation of the layout of the Idnakar settlement by electrometry (1991-1997)].

Molodin V. I., Chemyakina M. A., Garkusha Yu. I., Manshtein A. K., Dyad'kov P. G., Balkov E. V. Geofizicheskie i arkheologicheskie issledovaniya mogilnika Sopka-2 v 2000 - 2001 godakh [Geophysical and archaeological research of the Sopka-2 burial ground in 2000-2001]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: (Mat-ly Godovoi sessii Instituta arkheologii i etnografii SB RAS). Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2001, vol. 7, pp. 399-407.

Nikitin A. A., Khmelevskoy V. K. Integration of geophysical methods. Tver: GERS Publishing House, 2004, 294 p. (in Russian)

Smekalova T. I., Melnikov A.V., Myts V. L., Bevan B. V. Magnetometric study of pottery furnaces in medieval Taurica. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 2000. - 163 p.

Stanyukovich A. K. Basic methods of field archaeological geophysics // Natural-scientific methods in field archeology, Moscow: Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997, issue 1, pp. 19-42.

Molodin V. I., Parzinger G., Garkusha Yu. N., Shneevais I. I., Grishin A. E., Novikova O. I., Chemyakina M. A., Efremova N. S., Marchenko Zh.V., Ovcharenko A. P., Rybina E. V., Rybina L. N. Chicha - gorodishche perekhodnogo ot bronzy k zhelezu vremeni v Barabinskaya lesostepi [The ancient settlement of the transition from Bronze to Iron time in the Barabinsk forest-steppe]. Mylnikova, S. K. Vasiliev, N. Beneke, A. K. Manshtein, P. G. Dyadkov, N. A. Kulik. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2004. - Vol. 2. - 336 p. - (Materials on the archeology of Siberia; issue 4).

Shilik K. K. Opyt primeneniya magnitorazvedki na drevnerusskom gorodishche [Experience of applying magnetic exploration in the Ancient Russian settlement].

Shraibman, V. I., Serkerov, S. A., Sidelnikova, T. A., and Flerov, V. S., New applications of magnetic and electrical exploration in the study of ground burials in the North Caucasus, SA. - 1988. - N 1. - p. 101-113.

Shcheglov A. N. 25 years of work of the Tarkhankut expedition: Itogi i perspektivy [Results and prospects] / / KSIA, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985, issue 182, pp. 3-7.

Electrical exploration: Handbook of Geophysics: In 2 books. Edited by V. K. Khmelevsky and V. M. Bondarenko, Moscow: Nedra Publ., 1989, Book 1, 438 p.

Dahlin Т. The development of DC resistivity imaging techniques // Computers & Geosciences. - 2001. - Vol. 27. - P. 1019 - 1029.

Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation: Research and Professional Servies Guideline N 1. - Ancient Monuments Eaboratory. English Heritage, 1995 [Electronic resource]. - Режим доступа: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Geophysical_Survey_in_Archaeological_Field _Evaluation_1995.pdf

Griffiths D.H, Barker R.D. Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and modelling in areas of complex geology // J. of Apply Geophysics. - 1993. - Vol. 29. - P. 211 - 226.

Zhurbin L.V., Malyugin D.V. Onthemethodofvisualization of electrometric data //Archaeological prospection. - 1998. - Vol. 5,N2. - P. 73 - 79.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 16.11.06.

page 124

Permanent link to this publication: