 I present to you our resultat, our project which we get out at the expense of the Russian Science Foundation project number, 191800538, in search of invisible aerial bounds on the lands of north-eastern Russia. The Soviet-Apulia region is a small area on the Volga-Akka confluence which became one of the largest population centers in the 10th-12th centuries. MGM is a new political center of the north-eastern medieval Russia. This region is known as the territory where Finnish and Slavonic cultural tradition intermigrated. The region was included in the system of international trade links between east and west in the 10th-11th century. In the context of the studies of cultural contacts and Scandinavian presence in the eastern Europe in the 10th century. So the Apulia is of interest as one of the eastern most areas where beauty assemblages with Scandinavian type of jewelry and religious gold items such as clay pose and rings. Those origin is linked with the island island having documented. If you look at the present-day city-like image of European part of Russia, we will see the Ocariven as a sharp border between the regions of high and low agricultural activity. We see one exception, so the Apulia. The socio-economic structure established in the region of the bases of active and extensive development of highly fertile lands largely became the base for the strengthening and elevation of north-eastern Russian lentian and lentian-Moscowian roots. There are both natural and underpacking reasons for high agricultural potential for Apulia. The natural factors are forest soils. The special periglossal region in the territory in the late Pleistocene and during the Holocene optimum resulted in formation of highly fertile soil with polyhomous horizons. The anthropocene reasons seem to be just as much important to the evolution of the region during the escape. The beginning agricultural activity was connected with Slavic colonization of this region in the 10th or 11th century. Since that period the agricultural activity on the territory was interrupted. So three main interrelated processes form the typical landscape of Apulia. The first periglossal process is connected with the degradation of last glacier and related sub-sequent soil forming process. Andropaginic activity from the 9th-10th century is a part of our interest. The agricultural activity continues tillage from the 10th century. So the Apulia is known as a territory where the burrow cemeteries were widespread in the Viking and post-Viking period. But the most of the burrows were excavated in the middle of the 19th century. And now we have about 100 burrows for this territory, which we can name whole burrows. However, our field investigation and evolution of the maps of medieval necropolises and settlements have shown that the number of mounds is much smaller than the estimated population that could master this place. Now we have information about more than 300 medieval settlements on this area. For every 5-6 settlements, which are often more than a few hectares, this is one necropolis. The number of burials noted in each of the burial grounds cannot fully reflect the typographic situation in the region. We have any plans from the excavation of the 19th century, but we can't often reference it most of them because there are no typographic points, or they show incorrectly, or they were destroyed by the plug-in, or other reasons. This plan is one of the four visible necropolis, which located near Soudal. It's a city necropolis. You can see a plan of the 20th century and the present situation. The discovery of medieval ground cemeteries and the areas of cremation in the pit and the grace between burial mounds within the Cnomon burial necropolis made it clear that the funeral rite was much more difficult at the earliest stages of the Slavic colonization of the territory. However, it's not decided the question of scale of themselves funeral complexes. The materials of settlements of the 12th, 13th century shows the growth of the population, but until we can confirm the data from the funeral monuments. Convexity, available information, volume of data on burial monuments, and subjectivity limits the possibilities for the reconstruction of demographic and the social, cultural and historical process that took place in this area. The marked disproportion in the number of burial grounds and settlements and in the number of burials and area of living territories in the mediologies can be explained only by recognizing that a significant part of the medieval burial monuments was destroyed or remained undetected both during the field works of the middle of the 19th century and during the survives of the last decades including the exploration of the 2000s and 90s. So the main task for us now is to create the technology which would enable to locate hidden necropolis to define the structure and borders for archeological excavation, which we'll analyze tasks, and how to find archeological objects in our territory. It should be done in two steps, finding the settlements and defining its border, finding necropolis in the nearby area. It's not so easy because dwelling sites, in general, the technology of finding necropolis for the settlement should consist of three scale survivors, small scale survivors to define areas where more likely could be located necropolis, remote sensing, satellite and drone imaging, archeological field walking, middle scale survivors to define the necropolis border and its structure, geophysics. Large scale survivors to get the data for the interpretation of geophysical results and obtaining archeological information, soil survival profiles, archeological excavation. Discovering apolynecropolis and mapping its structures is a much more challenging task that of the settlements due to the fallen reasons. Feed walking turns out to be significantly less informative. Even if by feed walking we manage to find the necropolis, low number of artifacts disturbed by apolyne gives too little information about the necropolis structure and borders, or at least does not give data for the amount distribution analysis. General considerations about the topography influence on the necropolis position are too poor and give nothing in practice. So, in contrast to settlements case, remote sensing and geophysics are the only options for finding hidden necropolis. The compression of geophysical and remote sensing data of the six solar settlements and necropolis shows that the effects of the settlements on the ground properties seem to be more profound than that of necropolis. So, some mechanisms seem to be similar. This result is a masking of necropolis by tillage, other anthropogenic activities and natural process. In addition, the problem becomes more challenging and there is generally very physically contrast objects in apolynecropolis due to natural reasons and cultural reasons. There are no walls, stones, etc. Very small amount of metal objects make the necropolis is poorly visible for magnetic survey and metal with texas. The way out is the electrical resistivity survey. On low missiles, the resistivity of archaeological objects exceeds the background resistivity. The situation seems to be too typical for the central Russia. So, mapping invisible archaeological objects turns out to be possible by the difference in electrical resistivity. The map of resistivity for large territory affects the individual burial mounds, thus making it possible to identify the borders of the necropolis and the structure. The rows of parallel burial mounds you can see in the map. We see well in case of the mounds with round shape, but some mounds dishes have not preserved well and we see only the circle fragments of different size and shape. Much more serious problem is the natural objects which also have high resistivity. The K interpretation challenge is to separation from archaeological structure. How can we do it? There are three features which make possible distinguishing natural objects from archaeological shape. There's additional physical properties, not only resistivity. The idea is in utilization of all information about all this feature for both archaeological and natural objects. In case of archaeological object on the side, we now have rather present statistics more than three square meters of excavation. Can we easily get enough information about the natural structures to separate them from what we need to find? The answer is likely to be yes. Most of natural high resistivity objects in the landscape are polyo-creogenic relics of the late glacial period and subsequent soil formation included by the polar cells. Among the polyo-cranic objects, the most obvious are ice wedges polygons of different order and pingos. As paleopingos we interrupt the large object of high resistivity. They have rather big deaths which exceed the typical deaths of archaeological features. In contrast to burial mounds, the ice wedges have more censorship and different physical properties. The edges of polygons have high magnetic susceptibility, where the disturbance of the humus layer by ancient people and modern archaeological result in the decrease of magnetic. So, generally, we managed to devise the scheme of geophysical data interpretation allowing us to map individual burial mounds and get rid of natural objects. Up to now, we obtained the following results. We came close to defining the borders and structure of Shkshov necropolis, which is the unique case of the investigation of Apolly. The burial mounds necropolis near big settlement in Apolly were organized as a few clusters of mounds rather than one whole area. We see it in Shkshov and it explains why the plants of 19th century we always see only small number of mounds. We devised the technology, these can be applied to archaeological complexes in the region and provide data for special analysis of necropolis structure and distribution for the burial mounds, improving the excavation planning and out understanding of the region history. What's next? Our technology obviously have some drawbacks which we have to deal with. The first is that we have yet to prove its applicability at the settlements and natural land schemes other than that of Shkshov. The second is that the technology is a large part based on ground geophysics, which in case of conventional resistivity tomography is too slow to perform, especially we consider the investigation area size and the number of settlements. So we have two options to advance the space and we are very much processing technologies to be able to get more information from them to the for the planning of geophysics we will reduce in its amount to utilize all terrain vehicle with continuous recording geophysical system to get significantly larger areas survived in the same time.