Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 48 (4) 2020   DOI: 10.17746/1563-0110.2020.48.4.067-074

Annotation:  Early Middle Paleolithic Industries in Southeastern Dagestan Middle Paleolithic Bone Retouchers: Size or Proportions Shulbinka Paleolithic Site, Eastern Kazakhstan, Revisited Con Moong Cave: A Stratifi ed Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Site in Northern Vietnam Novopetrovka III—an Early Neolithic Site in the Western Amur Basin and Its Chronology Peculiarities of Using 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography in Caves Elk Figurine from Tourist-2, Novosibirsk: Technological and Stylistic Features Foundries at Stary Tartas-5—an Early Bronze Age Site in the Baraba Forest-Steppe Wells as a Source of Cultural and Chronological Information: The Case of Kamennyi Ambar, Southern Tr Mobility of the Suzdal Opolye Settlers in 900–1150 AD Descendants of Eleudei: The Problem of Oirat-Buryat Ethnic Contacts Floral Designs on Sacrifi cial Towels from an Old Believers’ Prayer House The Origin of the Okunev Population, Southern Siberia: The Evidence of Physical Anthropology and Gen The Paleogenetic Study of Bertek-33, an Afanasyevo Cemetery on the Ukok Plateau, the Altai Mountains   

Peculiarities of Using 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography
in Caves

V.V. Olenchenko^{1, 2}, L.V. Tsibizov^1–3, P.S. Osipova^{1, 2}, T.T. Chargynov⁴, B.T. Viola⁵, K.A. Kolobova⁶, and A.I. Krivoshapkin^{1, 6}

¹Novosibirsk State University, Pirogova 1, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

²Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pr. Akademika Koptyuga 3, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

³Geophysical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Molodezhnaya 3, Moscow, 119296, Russia

⁴Jusup Balasagyn Kyrgyz National University, Frunze 547, Bishkek, 720033, Kyrgyzstan

⁵University of Toronto, 27 King’s College Circle Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada

⁶Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

The efficiency of archaeological studies inside caves could be greatly enhanced by geophysical methods because of their potential for examining deposit structure and features. Application of those methods in caves entails a number of problems caused by limited space for measurements and the complexity of the surrounding medium’s structure as compared to above-ground measurements. In 2017, Selungur Cave in the Fergana Valley, Kyrgyzstan, was examined using electrical resistivity tomography. Because of the above concerns, in the course of the work the question of the reliability of the results arose. To clarify the issue, a numerical experiment was performed to assess the effect of the three-dimensional cave geometry on the results of a two-dimensional inversion. It was found that variations of cave geometry parameters result in unexpected false anomalies, and considerable errors in bedrock location and resistivity can occur. In the case of downward diverging cave walls, an accurate resistivity section can be obtained by using the inversion based on a two-dimensional model. Therefore, electrical resistivity tomography in caves with similar geometry can yield reliable results concerning the shape of bedrock surface, the thickness of sedimentary layers, and size and position of inclusions such as fallen fragments of roof therein.

Keywords: Archaeogeophysics, geophysical studies, inversion, numerical modeling, geoelectrics, Selungur Cave