1M. G. Ivanova, I. V. Zhurbin2

Udmurt Institute of History1, Language and Literature, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

4 Lomonosov St., Izhevsk, 426004, Russia

E-mail: adm@ni.udm.ru

2 Institute of Physics and Technology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

132 Kirova St., Izhevsk, 426000, Russia

E-mail: zhurbin@udm.ru

The article discusses the method of studying earthworks based on the integrated application of methods of archeology and geophysics. This technique makes it possible to identify archaeological objects that are not expressed in relief, restore their shape, and determine their geometric parameters. Archaeological excavations make it possible to correlate the observed anomalies with real objects. The final stage is the construction of a three-dimensional reconstruction of defensive structures based on geophysical data. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is demonstrated in archaeological and geophysical studies of the Idnakar settlement, one of the largest settlements of the Kama region in the Middle Ages.

Keywords: defensive structures, search, shape, structure, Idnakar settlement, geophysics, research methodology, three-dimensional reconstruction, defense system of fortified settlements.

Reconstruction of the processes of formation and development of ancient settlements is based on a joint analysis of the layout and system of fortifications. An effective way to solve this problem is to apply the combined methods of archeology and geophysics. The currently adopted strategy of such research involves a geophysical survey of the entire territory of the monument, which allows you to get preliminary information about its planigraphy as a whole and determine the site of the excavation for purposeful study of the selected objects. In turn, the archaeological study of key sites not only clarifies and verifies the information obtained, but also solves a number of specific tasks: identifying the design features of individual structures, stages of development and chronological framework of the settlement's existence, determining ethnic and cultural affiliation, etc. In the future, the interpretation of the layout and structure of the monument is based mainly on the results of geophysical measurements (Chicha..., 2004). With this approach, geophysics methods play a very significant role, therefore, the research methodology should provide a high degree of reliability in determining the location, boundaries and structure of archaeological sites.

Geophysical methods are widely used to search for structures, ditches, pits, furnaces, and other elements of settlements, but they are rarely used in the reconstruction of fortification systems. The most impressive results were obtained when identifying the buried remains of stone structures: foundations of towers and walls, underground passages, and other elements of fortifications [Slepak et al., 2004; Slukin, 1988; Epel-

The research is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 08 - 06 - 00002a).

page 82
baum et al., 2006]. Taking into account the high contrast of the physical properties of the stone in relation to the ground, almost the entire range of geophysical methods is used: electric, magnetic, seismic, ground penetrating radar, etc. Relatively few publications are devoted to the research of earthen defensive structures. In most cases, a particular problem is solved-determining the location of lines of fortifications that are currently not visually traced, for example, filled-in ditches and smoothed ramparts by plowing [Dombrovsky et al., 1962; Molodin et al., 2001; Skakun and Tarasov, 2000; Tibelius, 1995]. The range of geophysical methods used is not so wide: magnetic, electrical exploration, and high-frequency electromagnetic sounding.

An urgent task for archaeogeophysics is not only the search for defensive structures, but also their detailed study. In particular, the method of electric sounding fundamentally allows you to restore the shape of the preserved part of fortifications, identify the structure (stratification / uniformity) and assess the composition of soils. Analysis of this data will provide an opportunity to pre-reconstruct the technology of building fortifications. In some cases, such information allows us to substantiate assumptions about the relative chronology of the settlement's development and the peculiarities of the ethno-cultural situation. For example, the study of the composition of the ramparts of the Yablonovsky settlement in the Belgorod region by the method of electrical exploration revealed that stone was used in the construction of one of the ramparts, while the rest consisted only of soil reinforced with wooden structures (Dyachenko et al., 1999). This allowed researchers to determine the diversity of elements of the line of fortifications: the defense system was built in the Scythian era, and one shaft was reconstructed in the Middle Ages. Similar interdisciplinary studies were conducted at the Lukovnya settlement in the Moscow region (Stanyukovich, 1997, p. 4). 24 - 25]. Electrosonding revealed that the ramparts of the Early Iron Age settlement were formed by high-resistance soils with an inhomogeneous structure. As subsequent excavations have shown, this is loam and sand with a large number of limestone fragments. Later fortifications - Old Russian-consisted of homogeneous loam of low resistance. The use of electrotomography at the Znamenskoye settlement of the Dyakov culture made it possible not only to reconstruct the defense system of the settlement (two ramparts were identified that were practically not expressed in relief), but also to establish the shape of these structures and the construction technology (a sand embankment on the mainland loam) [Bobachev et al., 2006]. Of course, to determine the chronology of the formation of fortifications, identify their design features, as well as study the technology of their construction, excavations are necessary. However, without a geophysical forecast, archaeological studies of defensive structures are ineffective. Moreover, the development of a geophysical methodology for a comprehensive study of these structures creates a real alternative to excavations during the reconstruction of the defense system of fortified settlements.

Defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement: main results of archaeological research

One of the largest settlements of the Kama region in the Middle Ages, the ancient Udmurt settlement of Idnakar, was founded in the second half of the 9th century and existed for four centuries (Ivanova, 1998). Over such a long period, it has been periodically expanded, as evidenced by the presence of three different lines of defensive structures at different times (Fig. 1). From the east, on the floor side, two powerful shafts are visually fixed: the outer one restricts the platform, the middle one divides it into two approximately equal parts. The inner line of the fortifications is not expressed in relief; it was first revealed during the excavations of S. G. Matveev in 1927-1928. At present, the contour of the inner defensive rampart has been restored based on geophysical measurements. Summarizing the results of archaeological research allowed us to outline the next stages of the evolution of the defensive system [Ibid., pp. 20-27]:

Stage I - foundation of the ancient settlement and construction of the first line of fortifications-end of IX-beginning of X century.;

Stage II-construction of the second line of fortifications - mid-X century.;

Stage III-strengthening of the middle and construction of the outer line of fortifications, stopping the functioning of the inner one-the middle of the XI century.;

Stage IV-expansion of the middle and outer lines of fortifications-XII-early XIII centuries.

As the excavations showed, the inner line was not reconstructed during the entire period of its existence as a defensive structure. The middle and outer lines of fortifications functioned until the 13th century. Their shafts are characterized by significant capacity as a result of multiple expansions: at least four stages of reconstruction of the middle shaft and two - external ones were revealed. In addition, all lines of fortifications differ in the technology of their construction. Excavations have shown that the basis of the inner rampart is a log structure made of log cabins filled with dense, almost homogeneous clay (Fig. 2). In the middle and outer ramparts of such buildings, there is a large number of such structures.-

page 83

Fig. 1. Plan of the Idnakar settlement. Location of archaeological sites for defensive structures and geophysical survey data.

2. Lower crowns of log structures (view from the south). Idnakar hillfort, excavation in 2008, inner shaft, section U-14 (fixation level-340).

there are no structures. The sites of calcined clay, the remains of wattle fences and paving stones made of logs that strengthened the slopes are recorded archaeologically. Defensive structures also differ in shape. In particular, the inner side of the outer and inner shafts is close to vertical, while the outer side is quite flat. The middle shaft is sloping on both sides. In addition, the composition of the soils forming the array of each shaft is different. The inner one is formed from a homogeneous continental clay, in which spots of dark ashy loam and intersperses of light brown clay can be traced. The structure of the middle and outer ramparts is different: thick layers of sand covered with loam are fixed at their base. The composition of the soil of the middle shaft differs significantly in comparison with the external one. There are layers of clay, loam, sand and areas of calcined clay that record various stages of renewal. It is interesting that the structure of defensive structures is not the same throughout their entire length. For example, the central part of the middle rampart (excavated in 1988 and 1989) is based on sand layers with a very complex combination of clay and loam layers with various admixtures (humus, coal, marl, etc.), and in the southern part-almost pure continental clay, overlaid with clay with small inclusions of humus (excavations in 2000). Therefore, there is reason to believe that at different stages of the settlement's existence, the population used different construction techniques.

Thus, all three lines of protective structures of Idnakar significantly differ from each other in form, structure and design features. The presence of sites that differ in construction technology suggests that the population of the settlement did not have a single standard for the construction of earthen defensive structures. To identify all the listed features of the formation of the Idnakar fortification system, a detailed study of each line of defense is necessary throughout the entire territory.

page 84
length. The methodological basis of such studies can be a comprehensive application of the methods of archeology and geophysics. Therefore, the development of a specialized methodology for interdisciplinary research of earthworks is an actual direction. The archeogeophysical component of such a technique should provide the ability to quickly search for defensive structures that are not expressed in relief, as well as study their shape, composition and structure. Methods and technologies for interpreting geophysics data are equally important.

Search objects for geophysical surveys

Analysis of the results of preliminary archaeological investigations allowed us to formulate the criteria necessary for the qualitative and quantitative interpretation of geophysical anomalies. During the excavation of the internal defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement, the parameters of the embankment were established, S. G. Matveev proposed reconstruction in the form of a series of log cabins placed one to another and covered with dense red clay. Presumably along the top of the shaft passed tyn, traces of which were destroyed by long plowing. During the excavations of M. G. Ivanova in 1993-1994, information was obtained about the dimensions: the width of the shaft base is 5.5 - 6.0 m, the height of the preserved part of the embankment is 1.0-1.3 m, the moat is 7.0 - 7.8 m wide and is 1.5 - 1.6 m deep into the mainland [1998, p. 22]. Analysis of the stratigraphy shows that the upper part of the rampart was excavated during the existence of the settlement, and the ditch was filled in - in the lower layer of its filling, a layer of clay mixed with humus with a thickness of 0.40 - 0.50 m can be traced (Fig. 3). It is in this connection that the line of defensive structures is currently not expressed in relief. From the inside, thanks to the walls of the log cabins, the shaft remained almost vertical, and its outer slope was quite gentle [Ibid., pp. 20-22]. In accordance with this, the planigraphic geophysical anomaly caused by the internal defensive rampart probably has a linear shape and is elongated in the north-south direction, its width is approximately 5.0 - 6.0 m.

In the course of excavations, the remains of intra-basement structures were revealed in the form of wood interlayers oriented along the north-south line along the embankment (see Figure 2). The nature of the layers suggests that the builders installed one log house crown on the prepared surface and wrapped it with clay obtained during the moat sampling, after which the clay was compacted and the next crown was installed; the operation was repeated later. This is evidenced by stratigraphic data: inside the log house, layers of almost pure continental brown clay with a thickness of 0.10-0.15 m are interspersed with thin layers of gray loam - paleosol. After the construction of the base of the rampart, its outer and inner slopes were filled with dense red-brown clay. Consequently, the inner wall consisted of a fairly homogeneous, tightly compacted clay and significantly differed in composition and structure from the cultural layer (extremely heterogeneous-amorphous dark humus, to varying degrees saturated with lenses and layers of calcined clay, coal, ash, sandy loam, wood decay, etc.). This determines a significant contrast between the resistivity of the shaft mass and the ground in the inter-core space. Probably, the absolute value of this soil index on the site of the ancient settlement containing the rampart should be 20-40 ohms * m. The specific resistance of various soils that make up the cultural layer is estimated in publications devoted to archaeological and geophysical research (see, for example: [Slukin, 1988, pp. 46-48]).

3. Section of the inner line of defensive structures based on the materials of excavations in 1992-1994. (view from the south).

1-sod-arable layer; 2 - perekop, bulk layer; 3 - ashy sandy loam; 4-dark humus; 5-buried soil; 6-clay with sand; 7-clay; 8-baked clay; 9-dense loam with humus; 10-stones; 11-loose clay layer with humus; 12-coal; 13-carbonaceous layers; 14-wooden structures.

page 85
Methods of geophysical research of earthen defensive structures: main provisions and stages of work

When studying earthworks by the method of electrical exploration, the main elements of the methodology of complex geophysical studies of the cultural layer were used [Zhurbin et al., 2007]. In this case, archaeogeophysics makes it possible to reconstruct the planigraphy and stratigraphy of defensive structures. Based on the results of "planigraphic" measurements (electrical profiling), changes in the contour of the shaft and ditch in the horizontal plane parallel to the modern surface are estimated. If fortifications are not expressed in the terrain, interpretation of this data allows you to determine their location, as well as determine the depth of the objects in advance. During" stratigraphic " geophysical measurements (electrotomography), vertical sections of defensive structures are constructed. Geoelectric sections allow us to estimate the structure of strata and the shape of the studied objects. 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. A single coordinate grid for archaeological and geophysical research is a mandatory condition for conducting complex measurements. The best way to present the results obtained is a spatial model of an archaeological site based on geophysical data.

An important element of the interpretation methodology is the reasonable choice of the site for geophysical research. Initially, complex measurements are carried out on a small area near the excavations of previous years. Information about the spatial characteristics of the rampart and ditch, as well as the soil composition, is used to assess the correctness of preliminary geophysical reconstruction. Further research is related to the excavation of key sections of the defense line, which were identified based on geophysical data. At the same time, it is supposed to study not only the defensive structures themselves, but also the territory directly adjacent to the line of fortifications. Such verification of archaeological and geophysical reconstructions will allow creating standards for identifying different types of strata based on geophysical data. This provides verification of the methodology for determining the shape, size, and structure of defensive structures.

The next stage involves a geophysical study of the fortifications as a whole, which is carried out on the basis of the developed methodology. The aim of the work is to build a three-dimensional model of the entire line of defensive structures (restoring the shape and geometric characteristics), as well as to identify areas with different shaft and ditch structures (analyzing the composition and location of strata).

Comprehensive research of the defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement

The methodology of archaeological and geophysical research was tested during the study of the inner line of fortifications of the settlement. At the first stage, the central part of the settlement was mapped by electrometry (areal electro profiling). Based on the results of the analysis of the contour, location and amplitude of the detected anomalies, the inner defensive rampart corresponds to an area of low resistance of a linear shape, oriented in the north-south direction (see Figure 1). The main result of this stage of work is to determine the location and configuration of the inner line of fortifications of the settlement: the rampart crosses the entire site of the Idnakar settlement; from the north and south the defensive structures are limited to modern hillsides. On the outer side of the rampart, several insets are recorded, which, apparently, are associated with the late activity of the inhabitants of the settlement. In particular, the presence of one inset in the rampart massif was confirmed by excavations conducted in 1993 after electrometric studies were completed (Ivanova, 1998, Fig. 4). It should be noted that the shape in the plan and the resistivity of the anomaly corresponding to the shaft are in good agreement with the preliminary assumptions.

The next stage consisted in carrying out complex geophysical measurements - electro profiling and electrotomography. The main task is to determine the geometric parameters of the object and its shape. Studies were carried out along the entire length of the inner line of the fortifications of the Idnakar settlement. However, the greatest interest, from the point of view of analyzing the system of defensive structures of the settlement, is caused by a sharp narrowing of the rampart in the central part of this line of fortifications (see Fig. 1, the border of the site is shown in red). According to the results of areal electrical profiling (Fig. 4), the boundaries of the defensive rampart (lines T-F) are clearly distinguished. Obviously, the rampart is partially destroyed. In the northern and southern parts of the geophysical survey plate, its width is 4.5-5.0 m, and in the center it does not exceed 1.5 m.Damage to the top of the shaft is likely (sq. T9-T8, T13-T11 and T14-U14). Subsequent electrotomography measurements confirmed these assumptions. The studies were carried out using a system of parallel profiles oriented along the west-east line, across the obo-

page 86

4. Planography of the central section of the inner line of defensive structures based on the results of electrical profiling. Location of profiles 2, 4, and 7.

construction sites (a total of 41 geoelectric sections, the distance between adjacent profiles is 1.5 m). The article presents geoelectric sections for only three profiles (their location is shown in Fig. 4), which most contrastingly reflects the change in the shape of the shaft and ditch (Fig. 5). Geophysical sections revealed the causes of distortion of the "planigraphic" anomaly of the shaft. During "stratigraphic" studies, a peculiar shape of the shaft was restored - the inner side close to vertical and the stepped outer side (Fig. 5, a, b). The site located in the central part of this line of fortifications (see Fig. 4; 5, c), destroyed in pain-

5. Electrical tomography of a section of the inner line of defensive structures (view from the south).

a - profile 2; b-profile 4; c-profile 7.

page 87

Fig. 6. Results of interdisciplinary research on the territory of the excavation site in 2007-2008 (planigraphy).

a-map of the resistance distribution; b-summary plan of the location of layers of clay, calcined clay and stones. 1-preservation; 2-clay of various shades; 3-calcined clay; 4-stone.

neck degree. It is obvious that such a significant change in the geometric characteristics of the preserved shaft base determines the" breaks "and" constrictions "of the anomaly on the" planigraphic " geophysical map. Spatial parameters of the moat of the inner line of defensive fortifications are well reconstructed on "stratigraphic" sections. This makes it possible to evaluate not only its width, but also its depth, as well as the filling features. In the central part of the inner line of fortifications, the moat is almost covered with clay, probably cut from the rampart. This feature is most contrasted in the geoelectric section along profile 7 (see Fig. 5, c). Therefore, experimental studies have shown that "planigraphic" maps and" stratigraphic " sections complement each other. Comparative analysis allows you to refine the geometric parameters of objects and increase the reliability of reconstruction of their shape.

Of course, this interpretation is preliminary. Excavations are needed to clarify the geophysical forecast. That is why the third stage is associated with the archaeological study of key sites. This allows you to correlate the observed anomalies with real objects and create standards for anomalies caused by different soils. Excavations of the investigated site were carried out in 2007-2008 (see Fig. 1). In Figs. 6, a and 7, a, the contour of the shaft based on the results of these excavations is shown in red. A comparison of archaeological and geophysicist data has shown that the configuration of geoelectric anomalies is in good agreement with the actual shape of the rampart embankment.

An equally important result of the third stage of interdisciplinary research is finding a correspondence between different soils and the level of registered resistivity. In other words, direct comparison of the geophysical map with archaeological sections determines the range of resistance changes corresponding to each of the selected features and layers. The boundaries of the ranges of the created scale allow you to estimate the level of resistance that marks the boundaries of various components of the cultural layer on a given monument. As applied to the described studies, the range of changes in the resistance of the embankment of the shaft is in good agreement with the preliminary assumptions-20-40 ohms · m. In addition, on geoelectric sections, the shaft is revealed as a fairly homogeneous array in structure, which coincides with the results of excavations. At the same time, on all the obtained geophysical profiles, its embankment is detected in the same way. As an example, we present two geoelectric sections corresponding to the northern and southern ends of the inner line of defensive structures-profiles 41 and 29, respectively (see Figures 1 and 8). Thus, the analysis of the excavation results made it possible to assess the correctness of the reconstruction of the shape, geometric parameters and structure of the inner shaft based on electrical exploration materials. Since the coordinate grid during excavations and geophysical surveys coincided, it became possible to directly compare the obtained data on the stratigraphy and planigraphy of the cultural layer. Comparison showed that complex electrometric studies provide high accuracy in reconstructing the shape of the preserved shaft base, as well as in determining the size of objects and identifying the boundaries of strata.

The final stage of comprehensive research is the reconstruction of defensive structures. A spatial model of a fragment of fortifications constructed on the basis of geophysical sections clearly demonstrates the features of the shape of the rampart and moat (Fig. According to the data obtained during the excavation of this section of the inner line of defense, only a model of the rampart was created (Fig. 9, b), since the excavation of the moat was not completed. Thus, the developed approach makes it possible to present the results of archaeological and geophysical research more clearly, and also provides convenience for their analysis. In addition, building a spatial model of the entire lie-

page 88

Figure 7. Results of interdisciplinary research in the excavation area in 2007-2008. (stratigraphy).

a - geoelectric section along profile 1 (view from the south); b-line 15, profile of the northern wall. 1-conservation; 2 - arable layer; 3 - perekop; 4-mainland; 5-gray loam; 6-clay of various shades; 7-calcined clay; 8-coal; 9-ash; 10-light gray light ash loam; 11-dark gray medium ash loam; 12 - clay with humus content; 13-clay of various shades with inclusions of humus, coal; 14 - fragments of wood; 15-stone; 16-brown humus.

Figure 8. Electrical tomography of a section of the inner line of defensive structures (view from the south).

a - profile 41; b-profile 29.

page 89

Fig. 9. Fragment of the spatial model of the inner line of defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement (section P-C / 14-15).

a - based on geophysical data; b-based on the results of archaeological excavations.

10. Spatial model of the inner line of defensive structures based on geophysical data.

The Research Institute of Defensive Structures based on geophysical data (Figure 10) allows us to restore the original shape of objects that were not distorted by late sediments and modern soil deposits.

Based on the results of archaeological and geophysical studies of the inner line of the fortifications of the Idnakar settlement, it can be assumed that the rampart was a fairly homogeneous mass of clay with a length of at least 84 m. In general, the shape of the shaft in the profile along its entire length is almost unchanged: the inner side is close to vertical and the outer slope is gentle. On damaged areas (insets from the outside of the shaft) the moat is almost completely filled with clay, probably cut off during the late alignment of this line of fortifications.

Conclusion

An analysis of the results of interdisciplinary studies of the inner line of the fortifications of the Idnakar settlement showed the effectiveness of the method of reconstructing the shape, size and structure of archaeological sites based on geophysical data. The advantages of the proposed approach include the ability to quickly search for defensive structures that are not expressed in relief, and, consequently, determine the configuration and size of the settlement at various stages of its development. Further studies allow us to evaluate the shape and structure of earthworks based on the results of geophysical measurements, which makes it possible to determine the stages and technology of the construction of these fortifications. In addition, the three-dimensional

page 90
the model of defensive structures along their entire length provides a visual analysis of the defense system of fortified settlements. The effectiveness of the method is based on the integrated use of archaeological and geophysical data.

List of literature

Bobachev, A. A., Gorbunov, A. A., Modin, I. N., and Shevnin, V. A., Electrotomography by resistance and induced polarization, in Pribory i sistemy razvedochnoy geofiziki. - 2006. - N 2. - p. 14-17.

Dombrovsky K., Stopinsky P., Stupnitskaya E. Issledovanie arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov metodom opredelenii znacheniia elektrosoprotivlyaemosti grunt [Investigation of archaeological sites by determining the value of soil electrical resistance]. SA. - 1962. - N 3. - pp. 105-115.

Dyachenko A. G., Pogorelov Yu. S., Semushev M. I. Arkheologo-geofizicheskie issledovaniya Yablonovskogo gorodishche v lesostepnom Prioskolye [Archaeological and geophysical studies of the Yablonovsky settlement in the forest - steppe Prioskolye]. State Pedagogical Institute, 1999, pp. 159-165.

Zhurbin I. V., Bobachev A. A., Zverev V. P. Kompleksnye geofizicheskie issledovaniya kul'turnogo sloya arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov (gorodishche Idnakar, IX-XIII vv.) [Complex geophysical studies of the cultural layer of archaeological sites (Idnakar settlement, IX-XIII vv.)]. - 2007. - N 2(30). - p. 114-124.

Ivanova M. G. Idnakar: Drevneudmurtskoe gorodishche IX-XIII vv. - Izhevsk: Udmurt Republic. Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998, 294 p.

Molodin V. I., Parzinger G., Garkusha Yu. N., Shneevais Y., Becker H., Fassbinder Y., Chemyakina M. A., Grishin A. E., Novikova O. I., Efremova N. S., Manshtein A. K., Dyadkov P. G., Vasiliev S. K., Mylnikova L. N., Balkov E. V. Archeologo-geofizicheskie issledovaniya gorodishche perekhodnogo ot bronzy k zhelezu vremeni Chicha-1 v Barabinskaya lesostepi: Pervye rezul'taty Russo-Germanskoi expeditsii [Archaeological and geophysical studies of the Chicha-1 ancient settlement in the Barabinsk forest-steppe: The first Results of the Russian-German expedition]. - 2001. - N 3 (7). - P. 104-127.

Skakun N. N., Tarasov V. A. Results of applying magnetic exploration and kappametry in the study of the settlement of the Trypillian Bodaki culture. - 2000. - Issue 7. - p. 60-69.

Slepak, Z. M., Nugmanova, G. G., and Gilyazov, I. I., Forecasting the preserved remains of ancient buildings based on electromagnetic sounding data for the territory of the Historical Center of Kazan, in Archeology and Natural Sciences of Tatarstan. Kazan: Publishing House of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, 2004, Book 2, pp. 26-43.

Slukin V. M. Nondestructive methods for studying architectural monuments. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publ., 1988, 220 p. (in Russian)

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.

Results of geophysical research on Arkaim / / Russia and the East: problems of interaction: materials of the Conference-Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State University, 1995. - Part 5, book 2. - pp. 184-193.
Molodin V. I., Parzinger G., Garkusha Yu. N., Shneevaiss Y., 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, and N. A. Kulik. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SB RA N, 2004, vol. 2, 336 p. (Materials on the Archeology of Siberia; issue 4).

Epelbaum L. V., Hesin B. E., Itkis S.E. Osobennosti geofizicheskikh issledovaniy na arkheologicheskikh obektakh Israeli [Features of geophysical research at Israel's archaeological sites].

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 07.04.09.

page 91

Permanent link to this publication: