The article presents the results of a comprehensive archaeological and geophysical study of three lines of defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement of the IX-XIII centuries. The features of the shape, structure and construction of the embankments of each of them are revealed. The gradual expansion of the site with the construction of a new line of fortifications, their repeated strengthening indicate the intensive development of productive forces and demographic growth of the population, the strengthening of the internal potential of society and the development of fortified settlements of the Kama region along with the Bulgarian and Old Russian ones in the general course of urban development processes in Eastern Europe.

Keywords: Kama region, Middle Ages, Idnakar settlement, system of fortifications, form and structure of defensive structures, interdisciplinary research, electrometry method, town-forming processes.

Introduction

In the historical and cultural reconstructions of the medieval Kama region in recent decades, an increasingly significant place is occupied by materials of fortified settlements, which indicate that at the turn of the first-second millennium AD, the largest of them developed in the general course of city formation processes [Ivanova, 1998; Drevnaya Afkula..., 2008]. One of the essential indicators of the social status of a settlement is defensive structures, which were of fundamental importance in the life and activity of the emerging ethnopolitical community. However, the study of ramparts and ditches, which requires significant labor costs, for a long time remained beyond the attention of researchers. In the Finno-Ugric settlements of the Kama region, almost no special studies were conducted, with the exception of the Verkh-Sayinsky settlement of the V/VT-X centuries, where the defense line was studied for 200 m, but the results were reflected only in a small publication (Goldina and Pastushenko, 2003). On the Vazhnangersky (Malo-Sundyrsky) ancient settlement (Alamner) of the XIV-XV centuries. On the Volga, a 6x22 m excavation that cut through the rampart and moat revealed the remains of structures inside the rampart, traces of a building (watchtower), part of the wall, and sections of the rampart in the area of the proposed passage and on the cape of the ancient settlement (Alamner..., 2006; Nikitina and Mikheeva, 2004). However, in most cases, information about defensive structures is provided by individual sections (Drevnaya Afkula..., 2008, p. 44; Gubaidullin, 2002, p. 68-70). Naturally, such

* The research is carried out with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 11-06-00213a.

page 108
The approach does not allow us to get a complete picture of the process of forming a system of fortifications, moreover, the research experience of recent years has shown that for the full reconstruction of ancient settlements, it is necessary to study the defense system as a whole, including the configuration of defensive structures and the technology of their construction. For example, during the excavations of the fortifications of the Chicha I settlement, revealed during the area geophysical survey, a difference was found in the shape of the moat profile in the " citadel "and on the"periphery". This allowed us to determine the relative chronology of the settlement formation and the features of the ethno-cultural situation [Chicha..., 2004, pp. 264-266].

Targeted systematic studies of the defense system have been undertaken in recent years at the ancient Udmurt settlement of Idnakar in the IX-XIII centuries. This article presents a summary of the results of a comprehensive study of all the lines of defensive structures of Idnakar in the context of the development of fortifications of the Finno-Ugric settlements of the Kama region (Verkhsainsky, Anyushkar, Rozhdestvensky, Elabuzhsky), partly of the Volga region (Alamner), as well as Bulgarian and Old Russian.

Idnakar Fortification System

Idnakar was protected by three lines of defensive structures, which were built sequentially as the settlement developed (Ivanova, 1998). From the east, on the floor side, two powerful ramparts are visually fixed: the outer one limits the territory of the settlement, and the middle one divides it into two approximately equal parts (Fig. 1, a). The inner line of the fortifications is not expressed in relief; it was identified and reconstructed as a result of archaeological and geophysical studies (Ivanova and Zhurbin, 2010). On the promontory part, for more than 100 m, an escarpment can be clearly traced - a slope pruning with a height difference of up to 3 m and a cut-in width of up to 8 m (Fig. 1, b). According to some external signs, it can be assumed that in the Middle Ages the southern slope was also cut, although at present the traces are clearly not visible.

Since a detailed study of each line of defense along its entire length by traditional excavation methods is almost impossible, studies of the fortifications of the Idnakar settlement were based on an interdisciplinary approach. The search for defensive structures, the assessment of their shape and the structure of the embankment of ramparts were based on a comprehensive analysis of low-depth electrical exploration and archaeological data [Ibid., pp. 86-91]. It should be noted that the experience of archaeological studies of the defense system on the ancient settlement has already been largely developed (Fig. 2). Excavations on a fairly large area have studied the escarpment and all the lines of fortifications. Important data on the sequence of formation of defensive structures, some design features, shape and structure are obtained, and the chronology of their development is determined in general terms [Ivanova, 1998, pp. 17-29].

To clarify the reconstruction of the fortification system of the ancient settlement, it is necessary to identify the structure of cultural strata based on complex electrometric studies. Soils of different composition (clay, sandy loam, humus, etc.) that make up the embankment of the shaft and fill the ditch differ in specific resistance, the investigator-

Fig. 1. Views of the site of the Idnakar settlement from the south-east (a) and north-west (b). Photo by M. Buldakov.

page 109

Fig. 2. Plan of the Idnakar settlement.

however, on a geophysical map, archaeological layers (areas of soil of the same or similar composition) are displayed as areas of the same color (or several similar ones), the contours of which generally repeat the boundaries of the layer sections. Comparison of the map of the resistance distribution and the archaeological profile located along (or near) the geoelectric section makes it possible to correlate the observed areas with real archaeological layers. In addition, this approach makes it possible to determine the correspondence between the ranges of resistance changes and different soils of cultural stratification. Thus, in the framework of interdisciplinary studies of the Idnakar hillfort, archaeological information about the spatial characteristics of defensive structures and soil composition is used to evaluate the geophysical reconstruction.

The inner line of the fortifications was examined by S. G. Matveev (1927-1928) and M. G. Ivanova (1992-1994 and 2007-2009). The results of the excavations suggested that the base of the rampart was a structure of log cabins placed one to the other and covered with clay. During the opening of the shaft in 2007-2009, three powerful pits from pillars were recorded across the entire embankment, from the surface up to the mainland, located along the center line of the log cabins at a distance of approx. 2 m apart. Probably, the pillars were the basis of a wall built along the crest of the rampart.

Similar structures are recorded in Finno-Ugric settlements of the Kama and Volga regions, as well as in Bulgarian and ancient Russian settlements. Thus, the presence of log cabins inside the rampart is assumed at the Alamner hillfort [Nikitina and Mikheeva, 2004, pp. 195-196], and cage structures are noted at the Cherdynsky hillfort [Oborin, 1999, p. 263]. Log cabins with a width of 3.5-4.0 m and a length of approx. 5 m were found on the Suvar (Smirnov, 1941, p. 150-161), Tigashevsky, Bolynetoyabinsky, and other ancient settlements of Volga Bulgaria (Gubaidullin, 2002, p.53, 59, 60, 62). The basis of the ramparts of Vladimir in the X century and a number of ancient Russian settlements also consisted of wooden log cabins placed close to each other, filled with earth [Drevnyarus..., 1985, p. 168; Morgunov, 2008, p. 85-87].

Traces of external structures were recorded at an early stage of the formation of the fortifications of the Rozhdestvensky settlement, where a number of pits from pillars were found on the crest of the rampart, strengthening the wall of horizontally laid logs [Ancient Afkula..., 2008, p.81, 84]. This method of constructing defensive structures has been studied in Ancient Russian (Drevnyaya Rus..., 1985, p. 168) and Bulgarian ancient settlements of the pre-Mongol period (Gubaidullin, 2002, Fig.151). It should be noted that a similar wall design has been preserved in the Udmurt construction practice to the present time [Pint, 1931, fig. 3, 8; Kirillov, 2005, Fig. 10].

The inner line of the defenses of Idnakar bounded a part of the cape with an area of approx. 10 thousand m2. Electrical survey data suggest that the shape of the shaft in the profile along its entire length is practically unchanged: the inner side is close to vertical and the outer slope is gentle (Ivanova and Zhurbin, 2010).

Additional comparison of the results of archaeological and geophysical studies of the pre --

page 110
this made it possible to restore the structure of the strata of this line of fortifications and the adjacent territory. On the geoelectric section (Fig. 3, a), the contours of the preserved base of the inner shaft and the moat are contrasted. A solid black line shows the boundary of cultural strata identified during excavations of this site of defensive structures (Fig. 3, b). The inner shaft corresponds to a trapezoid-shaped area located in the center of the geoelectric section with a low resistance, which practically coincides with that of the mainland clay. This interpretation is consistent with the results of excavations, which showed that the inner rampart consisted of a fairly homogeneous, tightly compacted clay and significantly differed in composition and structure from the cultural layer. On all the obtained geophysical profiles, the embankment of the shaft is detected in the same way. The geoelectric section does not show the lower boundary of the ditch. Obviously, this is due to the fact that during the reconstruction of the inner line of fortifications (no later than the XI century), it was filled with clay cut from the top of the rampart. In the lower part of the filling, thick layers of clay mixed with humus are clearly recorded (Fig. 3, b; 4, a).

Geophysical studies revealed the boundaries of layers of relatively high resistance (layers with humus content, sandy loam, etc.) in front of the shaft and in the upper part of the ditch filling (Fig. Archaeological studies have shown that in the later period of the settlement's existence, the territory of the already swollen moat was also actively used. Industrial structures related to metal processing were found here, and on the border of the shaft and ditch - a hearth and a pit, which, judging by the findings in the filling, could date back no later than the XII century, most likely to the XI century.

The middle line of fortifications with a length of 134 m is located 74 m from the inner one (counting from the crest of the rampart) and limits the area to 20 thousand m2. From the floor side, it is clearly visible almost along the entire width of the cape (see Fig. 1, a). The composition of the clothing inventory suggests that this line of fortifications began to form in the middle of the X century and existed until the beginning of the XIII century.

3. Results of interdisciplinary studies of the inner line of defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement, a-geoelectric section along the northern wall of the excavation in 2007-2009; b-generalized drawing of the northern profile of the excavation (view from the south). 1-sod-arable layer; 2-clay of various shades; 3-dark humus; 4-ashy sandy loam; 5 - perekop, bulk layer; 6 - dense homogeneous loam (paleosoil); 7 - loam with inclusions of clays of various colors; 8-dark sandy loam with humus.

page 111

4. Comparison of the results of archaeological and geophysical studies, a-location of low-resistance layers (clay, loam); b-location of high-resistance layers (humus, sandy loam with various inclusions).

destroyed by buildings dating back to the 1950s, archaeological and geophysical studies were conducted only in the central (1988 and 1989) and southern (2000) areas (see Figure 2).

The most complete information was obtained in 1988.In the central part of the middle line of fortifications, design features, shape, structure of the rampart and ditch were revealed. The opening of the embankment showed that this shaft is significantly different from the internal one. First, no log structures were found here. Secondly, the shaft was built in several stages, significantly expanded to the floor side and many times exceeded the size of the internal one. At the excavation site in the base of the rampart, there is no cultural layer; a thin carbonaceous layer can be traced from bonfires that were probably built for the purpose of ritual purification of the proposed base by fire (Fig. 5, b). The base of the embankment is sand with small inclusions of coal, in the upper part - yellow sand. On the outside, the shaft is expanded with a thick layer of red clay. Its surface, apparently, was reinforced with wooden blocks, from which a small layer of decay was preserved. As a result of repeated extensions, the outer slope of the shaft has become almost vertical. The cultural layer that accumulated between the construction stages can be traced from the side of the moat in the form of layers of dark loam with inclusions of coal and humus. No log structures were found in the rampart embankment at all the excavation sites, but calcined clay platforms, paving slabs made of logs laid along the top or slope of the embankment, and in some places stone layouts were recorded. For example, in an excavation in 1989, a rounded area (1.75 m in diameter) of hard - packed calcined clay with a thickness of 0.4 - 0.5 cm was revealed near the inner edge of the rampart, and between the layers of the embankment there was a clearly defined pavement of seven logs (1.1 x 0.7/1.0 m). On the southern section of the middle line of fortifications, the rampart was reinforced from the outside with logs laid obliquely in a row. Along the edge of the moat, a number of pits with a diameter of 5 - 7 cm are fixed, probably from the fence that protected the embankment from spreading during construction.

In the central section of the middle line of fortifications, the upper part of the rampart is plowed, and it is not possible to identify the remains of structures on the surface of the embankment. However, in the south, traces of external structures are recorded on the crest of the shaft in the form of two parallel rows of pits from pillars with a diameter of 0.20 - 0.25 m.,

page 112
depth of 0.7 - 0.8 m with an interval of up to 3.0 m. The distance between rows is up to 2.0 m. The pit system is connected by grooves with traces of burnt logs. The wall could consist of two parallel rows of vertically placed pillars, the gap between which is covered with horizontally laid logs.

Similar wooden structures in the form of a log roll or fence between the pillars, which protected the ramparts from crumbling, were traced on a number of ancient settlements in the Kama region. On Dondykar, A. P. Smirnov revealed that a wall of logs was erected on the inner side of the rampart, fixed with vertical pillars. Along the top of this shaft, 5 m wide at the base and 1.2 m high, there was a rear that surrounded the entire site (Smirnov, 1928, p. 27, Fig. 3).

On the Lavryatsky and Nazarovsky hillforts, between two rows of palisades and a wattle fence, there was a backfill made of crushed stone and clay. A log roll with a backfill on the side of the site was found on Rozhdestvensky and Rodanovsky hillforts, and on Redikorsky it formed two ledges covered with clay. The ramparts of the Salamatovsky and Lavryatsky hillforts at the base were reinforced with a layout of stones. Along the ridges of the ramparts and along the edges of the platforms were palisades (Anyushkar, Redikor) [Oborin, 1999, p. 263]. A wall of horizontally laid logs on the inner side of the rampart and a palisade along the top are marked on the Verkh-Sain settlement (Goldina and Pastushenko, 2003, p. 148). Traces of a tynus or wattle fence that protected the rampart from crumbling were traced at the Filippovsky settlement (Drevnyaya Afkula..., 2008: 81, 84).

It should be noted that the studied sections of the middle shaft differ significantly in the structure of layers. In the 1988 excavation, the base is a thick sand mass overlaid on the outside by layers of clay and loam with a relatively low concentration of inclusions (humus, coal). A different situation was recorded in the excavation of 1989: over a fairly thin layer of sand (up to 0.25 m) there are layers of clay and loam with a significant content of humus, coal, sand, marl and ash. At the last stage of the shaft formation, the loam is covered from the outside with layers of dense sand with small inclusions of coals and reinforced along the surface with decking made of logs and poles, calcined clay, and stones. On the southern periphery of the middle line of the fortifications, the base of the rampart is loam with humus, overlain by layers of continental clay interspersed with sandy loam layers. A common feature, from the point of view of soil composition and the location of layers in the shaft massif, is the presence of a thick layer of calcined clay with ashy inclusions, which fixes the inner slope of the shaft. To identify features of midline formation

5. Results of interdisciplinary studies of the middle line of the fortifications of the Idnakar settlement, a-geoelectric section along the southern wall of the excavation in 1988; b-generalized drawing of the southern profile of the excavation (view from the south). 1-sod-arable layer; 2-clay of various shades; 3-calcined clay; 4-ashy sandy loam; 5-sand; 6-gray loam with humus inclusions; 7 - calcined clay with carbonaceous inclusions; 8-dark loam; 9-dark loam with carbonaceous inclusions; 10-coals, carbonaceous layers; 11-remains of wood and wood dust; 12-lime; 13-sections of logs and poles.

page 113
the fortifications of Idnakar require a detailed study of its entire length. The methodological basis of such studies is the integrated application of the methods of archeology and geophysics.

Geophysical surveys were carried out on three sites bounded by excavations and the southern slope of the cape. The measurements were carried out using a system of parallel profiles oriented along the west-east line across the defensive structures (28 sections with a length of 51.5 m each, the distance between adjacent profiles is 1.5-2.0 m). The total length of the archaeological and geophysical survey area was 70 m (see Figure 2). The measurements were carried out in the vicinity of the excavations, which allowed us to correlate the features of resistance changes with the location of layers of various soils in the embankment of the rampart and, based on this, to interpret the geophysical sections quite clearly.

The analysis of electrotomography data was based on the southern profiles of the excavations of 1988 and 1989, as well as the northern and southern excavations of 2000. The article presents only one geoelectric section, which is oriented parallel to the wall of the 1988 excavation, the distance between it and the profile line is 1.5 m (see Fig. 5, a). Assuming that the shape and structure of the rampart embankment did not fundamentally change at this interval, we used information about the location of soil layers recorded in the profile of the southern wall of this excavation to interpret the geophysical section (see Fig. Combining the images of the archaeological and geophysical sections allows us to state that electrotomography well reconstructs the boundaries of the cultural layer and the shape of the embankment of the shaft (in Fig. 5, and the border of cultural strata is shown by a solid black line). In this case, the inhomogeneous structure of the shaft base is clearly revealed. The location of continental clay and loam layers is contrasted on the geophysical map (Fig.

6. Comparison of the results of archaeological and geophysical studies (location of layers in the embankment of the rampart), a-low-resistance layers (clays and loams); b-intermediate-resistance layers (sand); c-high-resistance layers (calcined clay and sandy loam).

page 114
6, b), as well as calcined clay and sandy loam with various inclusions (Fig. At the same time, the contours of geophysical anomalies almost coincide with the boundaries of strata identified in archaeological sections. Similar results were obtained from excavations in 1989 and 2000.

Based on the characteristics of the resistance distribution in a set of geoelectric sections, five types of structures are distinguished (Figure 7): the first group combines six adjacent sections, the second and third - seven each, the fourth - five, and the fifth - three. The figure shows the sections that most contrast different variants of the resistance distribution. Probably, the selected types correspond to different sections of the embankment in terms of structure. The nature of the change in resistivity suggests at least four variants of the base of the middle shaft (Fig.:

models 1 and 2 are loams with various admixtures overlain on the outside by continental clay (see geoelectric profiles). 7, a, b);

7. Characteristic geoelectric sections in the selected groups: a - the first group; b - the second; c - the third; d - the fourth; e - the fifth.

page 115

8. Generalized models of structures of the base of the rampart of the middle line of fortifications of the Idnakar settlement based on geophysical data: a-calcined clay, humus, sandy loam with ash and coal inclusions; b-clay of various colors; c - loam of various shades; d - sand; e-sandy loam and loam with humus inclusions.

Model 3 is a sandy base overlain by loam and continental clay (see Figure 7, c for the geoelectric profile):

model 4 - loam (inner part) and sandy loam (outer slope) with various admixtures overlain on the inner side by continental clay (geoelectric profile, see Fig. 7, d);

Model 5 - mound of continental clay (see Figure 7, e for the geoelectric profile).

Based on the analysis of geoelectric sections, it can be assumed that the shaft was reinforced on the inside with calcined clay almost along its entire length (models 1-4). According to the structure and composition of soils, models 1 and 2 are the same, but the geophysical sections of the second group show a significant decrease in the thickness of the continental clay layers on the outer side of the shaft, so these sections were divided.

Thus, in a comprehensive study of the middle line of the fortifications of the Idnakar settlement, it was revealed that at least four technologies of embankment formation were used in the construction of the rampart core (without taking into account subsequent extensions). The boundaries of sections with different structures are defined, the length of which is 18; 6; 28; 14 and 4 m (models 1 - 5, respectively).

The outer line of fortifications is located 130 m from the middle one, with its construction the area of the settlement has reached 40 thousand m2. The defensive structures are clearly visible along their entire length (see Fig. 1, a). However, the layers of the northern part of the moat were destroyed by buildings from the 1950s, so archaeological and geophysical studies were carried out in the central and southern sections (see Figure 2).

The most significant archaeological data on the structure and stages of formation of the outer line of fortifications were obtained in the southern part: the excavation of 1992 covered the entire line of the rampart and ditch (Fig. It is revealed that the base of the shaft is uneven, it is somewhat deepened in the floor part. The lower layer is sand and clay with small inclusions of coal, it is overlain by dark loam with carbonaceous layers, the thickness of which noticeably increases in the center of the shaft. The bulk of the embankment consists of grayish loam with humus inclusions. Above is a fairly uniform layer of clay with marl. The inner slope of the rampart is almost vertical and was reinforced with a wall of horizontally laid logs, and the outer slope is gentle, with a slope of about 30°. The outer slope of the rampart is covered with a layer of sand and a denser layer of clay with sand. Time of construction of the shaft, in all probability-

page 116
it coincides with the development of the territory between it and the middle shaft. This line of fortifications functioned in the XI-XI centuries. The structure of the base of the rampart embankment in the central part (excavation 2004-2006) is generally similar. Of interest is the system of six pits from pillars with a diameter of 25-30 cm, located along the shaft in two lines, separated from each other by a distance of approx. 2 m, found at this site in the lower layers. These pits, which contained gray loam and dark humus with wood residues, can be interpreted as traces of a structure that supported the embankment of the rampart. The southern part of the outer line of fortifications, unlike the central one, was probably built in one step. There are no traces of subsequent updates and alterations in this area. Obviously, the expansion of the embankment of the shaft was not carried out along the entire length.

Geophysical studies revealed a similar structure of strata both at the site located north of the 2004-2006 excavation (12 geoelectric sections, 1.5 m step) and between the excavations (8 geoelectric sections, 1.5 m step) (Fig. Combining the images of archaeological and geophysical sections shows that areas of high resistivity correspond to layers containing humus and carbonaceous inclusions (Fig. 10, a), and low resistivity corresponds to clay with a small number of foreign inclusions (Fig. 10, b). This is in good agreement with the results of the geophysical survey of the inner and middle lines of the fortifications.

Thus, comprehensive studies of all three lines of defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement showed that they differ significantly from each other in form, structure and design features. The inner line was not reconstructed for the entire period of its existence until the middle of the XI century, when it lost its significance due to the construction of a new one. 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 - of the external shaft are fixed. When comparing the width of the shafts at the base, the similarity of the parameters of the inner shaft and the average in the first period (5.5 - 6.0 and 7.0 m, respectively), the average in the second period and the outer in the first (14.0 and 15.0 m), as well as at the last stage of these two shafts (19.0 and 18.0 m) is revealed.

The escarpment was studied in the north-western part of the cape (see Fig. 1, b), where a reconnaissance excavation with an area of 27 m2 was laid. It is revealed that its design is quite simple. By cutting the slope, a platform and a wall were formed. According to the concentration of pits from stakes with a diameter of 5-7 cm, we can assume

9. Results of interdisciplinary studies of the outer line of defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement, a-geoelectric section along the northern wall of the excavation in 1992; b-generalized drawing of the southern profile of the excavation (view from the south). 1-sod-arable layer; 2-clay of various shades; 3-clay with sand inclusions; 4-clay with marl inclusions; 5-sand; 6-gray loam with humus inclusions; 7-dark loam with humus inclusions; 8-dark loam; 9-dark loam with carbonaceous inclusions; 10 - coals, carbonaceous layers; 11-dark gray ashy loam; 12-dense homogeneous loam (paleosoil).

page 117

10. Comparison of the results of archaeological and geophysical studies (location of layers in the embankment of the rampart), a-relatively high resistance layers (loam with inclusions of humus, coal and ash); b-low resistance layers (clay with inclusions).

the presence here of additional elements of defense - "particle" or "chess" stakes, which functioned for quite a long time. Judging by the location of a larger pit with traces of light brown loam embedded in it, it may be from one of the supporting pillars of a defensive structure similar in design to a watchtower (Kirillov, 2004, p. 204, Fig.6, 7).

The system of defensive structures of Idnakar is comparable to the fortifications of the settlements of the Kama region, as well as the forest zone of Eastern Europe. A striking example of slope pruning along the entire perimeter of the site is the synchronous Anyushkar hillfort on the upper Kama River, traces of slope escarpment were noted in the Verkhnekamsky Petukhov and Gyrchikov hillforts of the V/VI-X centuries [Goldina and Pastushenko, 2003, p. 148], the Verkhnekamsky Petukhov and Gyrchikov hillforts [Oborin, 1999, p. 263], and the Malovenizhsky Por-kar hillfort X-XH centuries on the Cheptsa River [Semenov, 1982, p. 27].

The gradual expansion of the site and fencing with a new defensive line in the period from IX-X to XIII centuries were traced in the synchronous settlements of the Kama region Anyushkar (Oborin, 1999, p. 263) and Yelabuzhsky (Nigamaev, 2005, p.14-15), Sarsky settlement of the VIII - XI centuries nar. Oka [Leontiev, 1996, p. 72-80], Bulgarian [Gubaidullin, 2002, p.87-91], as well as the dress of ancient Russian cities [Rappaport, 1961, p. 26-31].

The stages of strengthening fortifications due to the expansion of ramparts were identified on the Sarsky hillfort. Its total area is slightly smaller (2.7 ha), the ramparts are twice as short, but they are close to Idnakar in base width: the first one has 22 m, the second one has 15.3 m, and the third one has 10.0 m and then 23.5 m. During the construction of the latter, logs were laid across the axis of the shaft after 4.3 - 4.8 m, which were preserved to a height of 0.35 m [Leontiev, 1996, pp. 72-80]. The main line of the earthen rampart of the inner city of Bilyar was reconstructed four times during the period from the 10th to the 13th centuries (Khuzin and Kaveev, 1985). In the X century, the width of its base was 7-8 m with a height of 0.5-0.6 m; in the first half of the XI century, the thickness of the embankment was increased by 1.0 m; in the XII century. the height of the shaft reached 2.4 m, and the width of the base -16 m. During this period, a ditch was dug with a width of 10 m and a depth of 2.0 - 2.5 m. At the beginning of the 13th century, as a result of additional filling, the shaft reached a height of 3.0-3.5 m and a width of 20 m at the base. Data on the design and dimensions of shafts in Suzdal are very similar: the width of the base is 9 m at first, 10 m in the second half of the XI - beginning of the XII century, and 16 m in the end of the XII - first half of the XIII century [Sedova, 1997, pp. 52-54].

page 118
Conclusion

Based on the results of comprehensive research, the structure of all three lines of defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement was restored. A comparative analysis of geophysical and archaeological data suggests that the population of the ancient settlement did not have a single standard for the construction of ramparts. This is most contrastingly demonstrated by the results of studying the middle line of fortifications. Of course, such results cannot be obtained only from archaeological data, so the proposed method solves a fundamentally new problem-identifying the features of the formation of the entire system of defensive structures. The implementation of the proposed approach in the study of fortified settlements significantly expands the source base for systematic historical and cultural reconstructions in the region.

In general, these data confirm the development of the fortifications of Idnakar and the Kama fortifications in common with the Bulgar and Old Russian ones, which strengthens the argument about the unified urban development processes in the region. The expansion of the sites indicates, on the one hand, a significant increase in the population, on the other - the need to strengthen fortifications and the available opportunities for implementing this task.

List of literature

Alamner: Myth and Reality (Vazhnanerskoe (Malo-Sundyrskoe) gorodishche i ego okruga) / T. B. Nikitina, A. I. Mikheeva. Yoshkar-Ola: Marniiyali Publ., 2006, 196 p.

Goldina R. D., Pastushenko I. Yu. Defensive structures of the Verkh-Sain I ancient settlement // International (XVI Ural) Archaeological Conference. Perm: Perm State University, 2003, pp. 147-149.

Gubaidullin A.M. Fortification of ancient settlements in Volga Bulgaria. Kazan: Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, 2002, 232 p.

Ancient Afkula: an archaeological complex near the village of Rozhdestvensk / A.M. Belavin, N. B. Krylasova. - Perm: Perm State University. -ped. un-t Publ., 2008, 603 p. (in Russian)

Drevnyaya Rus': Gorod, zamok, selo. - Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985. -432 p. - (Archeology of the USSR).

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

Ivanova M. G., Zhurbin I. V. Arkheologo-geofizicheskie issledovaniya oboronitel'nykh sooruzheniy [Archaeological and geophysical studies of defensive structures]. - 2010. - N3. - p. 82-91.

Kirillov A. N. Oboronitel'nye sooruzheniya gorodishche Idnakar: eskarp [Defensive structures of the Idnakar settlement: escarpment] / / Udmurt Archaeological Expedition-50 years: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference-Izhevsk: Udmurt, Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004, pp. 202-208.

Kirillov A. Archeology and Computer technologies: presentation and analysis of archaeological materials. Izhevsk: Udmurt, Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2005, pp. 47-54.

Leont'ev A. E. Archeologiya meri: (K predistorii Severo-Vostochnoi Rus') [Archeology of Meri: (To the Prehistory of North-Eastern Russia)], Moscow: Geoeko Publ., 1996, 242 p.

Morgunov, Yu. Y., Some observations on the "intravenous carcasses" of pre-Mongol fortifications, KSIA. -2008. - Issue 222. - pp. 85-90.

Nigamaev A. Z. Bulgarian cities of the Kama region: Alabuga, Kirmen, Chally. Kazan: Kazan State University Publ., 2005, 228 p. (in Russian)

Nikitina T. B., Mikheeva A. I Oboronitel'nye sooruzheniya Vazhnangerskogo gorodishcha [Defensive structures of the Vazhnangersky Ancient Settlement], in Udmurt Archaeological Expedition-50 years: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference-Izhevsk: Udmurt, Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004, pp. 194-201.

Oborin V. A. Komi-permyaki // Finno-Ugric peoples of the Volga region and the Urals in the Middle Ages. Izhevsk: Udmurt, Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999, pp. 255-298.

Pint A. And to the history of the Udmurt dwelling. Research Institute of Peoples of the Soviet East under the Central Election Commission of the USSR, Moscow: Tsentrizdat, 1931, issue 2, pp. 76-98.

Rappoport And A. Ocherki po istorii voennogo zodchestva severo-vostochnoy i severo-zapadnoy Rus ' X-XV vv. - M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1961. - 248 p. - (MIA; N 105).

Sedova M. V. Suzdal in the X-XV centuries. - Moscow: Inform. - izdat. Russkiy Mir Agency, 1997, 320 p. (in Russian)

Semenov V. A. Malovenizhskoe gorodishche Por-kar / / Srednevekovye pamyatniki basseina r. Cheptsy [Medieval monuments of the Cheptsy River basin]. - Izhevsk: Scientific Research Institute at SM UASSR, 1982. - p. 27-51.

Smirnov A. I. Dondykarskoe gorodishche // Tr. Nauch. ob-va po izucheniyu Votskogo kraya [Proceedings of the Scientific Society for the Study of the Votsk Region]. - 1928. - Issue IV. - p. 26-61.

Smirnov A. I. Suvar // Tr. ROME, 1941, Issue 16: Works of archaeological expeditions, pp. 135-170.

Khuzin F. Sh., Kaveev M. M. Studies of the inner line of defense of the Bilyar settlement // Military and defensive affairs of pre-Mongol Bulgaria. Kazan: KF of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1985, pp. 41-57.

Molodin V. I., Parzinger G., Garkusha Yu. N., Shneevayss I., Grishin A. E., Novikova O. E., Chemyakina M. A., Efremova N. S., Marchenko Zh. V., Ovcharenko A. N., Rybina E. V. 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).

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 28.07.11, in the final version-on 06.06.12.

page 119

Permanent link to this publication: