Quaternary International 442: 12-22）．
（5）明治大学黒耀石研究センター資料・報告集 4 の編集
人類−資源環境系ダイナミズムの多視点的な研究およ び，今後こうした研究を担う若手研究者の教育，育成に も資することを目的に 2015 年度より刊行を開始した，
『明治大学黒耀石研究センター資料・報告集』の第 4 号 の編集を橋詰特任准教授が中心となって進めた．
今回報告を行うゴンチャルカ 1 遺跡が含まれるノヴォ トロイツコエ遺跡群は，ロシア連邦ハバロフスク市中心 部から南西約 15 kmの露中国境付近に分布する．本遺 跡群とその周辺には合わせて 60 箇所近くの更新世末期 から完新世初頭の遺跡が確認されている．そのため，ア ムール川下流域における最古の土器を伴う，更新世／完 新世移行期の考古文化であるオシポフカ文化期遺跡の密 集地域として注目を集めてきた．オシポフカ文化は更新 世末期の土器，石斧や大形尖頭器を含む両面加工石器な どの共通要素から，日本列島の縄文草創期の比較対象と して注目されてきた．さらに，更新世から完新世への移 行期は急激な寒暖の振幅を繰り返しながら，安定した温 暖期へと向かった環境の激変期でもある．本報告の編者 らは，人類によるこうした環境変動への適応行動解明を 最終目標として研究を進めている．オシポフカ文化は環 境激変期における人類の適応行動の地域事例として，特 に日本列島との比較対象としても適しており，黒耀石研 究センターが目指す「人類−資源環境系ダイナミズムの 多視点的な研究」に資する研究テーマである．
明治大学黒耀石研究センターでは，2010年よりN. I.
グロヂェコバ名称ハバロフスク地方郷土誌博物館と学術 共同研究協定を締結し共同で当地での発掘調査を行うと ともに，先行調査の出土資料の分析を継続してきた．調 査自体は現在も継続中であるが，本書ではその成果の一 部について報告を行う．対象とするのは編者らが参加し て行った，ゴンチャルカ 1 遺跡の 2001 年調査である．
アムール川下流域では，先行研究によりオシポフカ文化 の分布範囲や年代幅，考古資料の内容などが明らかにな
確には伝わっていない．そのため，本報告ではゴンチャ ルカ 1 遺跡の調査成果の報告を通じて，当該期の環境変 動と人類行動の変化との対応関係の検討に向けたデータ を提示することを目的とした．まだ未解明の課題も残す が，本報告の刊行によってオシポフカ文化についてさら に検討が進むことが期待される．本報告は 2018 年 3 月 刊行予定である（橋詰潤・シェフコムード I. Ya. ・内田 和典・長沼正樹編（印刷中）『更新世末期のアムール川 下流域における環境変動と人類行動Vol.3：ゴンチャル カ 1 遺跡（2001 年）発掘調査報告書』明治大学黒耀石 研究センター資料・報告集 4，明治大学黒耀石研究セン ター）．
（6）矢出川湿原における古環境調査にむけた踏査 広原湿原における古環境調査では，ボーリング調査等 によって得られた試料の分析によって 30 ka cal BP以降 の古環境復元を可能とする多くのデータを獲得すること ができた．一方で，広原遺跡群第II遺跡において最も 濃密な人類活動の痕跡が確認された 30 ka cal BPを遡る 時期については古環境データを得ることができなかっ た．長野県南牧村の野辺山高原に位置する矢出川湿原は 周辺に矢出川遺跡群が分布しており，標高も広原湿原お よび周辺遺跡群に近いことなどから広原遺跡群との比較 対象として好適な存在である．さらに 1970 年代末から 1980 年代初めにかけて明治大学考古学研究室を中心と した考古，古環境調査も行われ多くの成果が上がってい るのと共に 30 ka cal BPを遡る可能性のある堆積物が湿 原から採取されている．こうしたことから，センターお よび明治大学考古学研究室では，30 ka cal BPを遡り，
広原湿原および周辺遺跡群との比較が可能な古環境デー タ獲得を目指した古環境調査を矢出川湿原において実施 することを計画した．本年度は，南牧村教育委員会と今 後の調査について協議を行ったほか，11 月に矢出川湿 原においてかつて行われた調査地の確認と，調査候補地 選定のための現地踏査を行った．
Ⅱ 研究交流，研究会
1．黒 耀 石 研 究 セ ン タ ー 国 際 ワ ー ク シ ョ ッ プ 2017
2017 年 10 月 28 日に黒耀石研究センター国際ワーク シ ョ ッ プ 2017「 海 洋 酸 素 同 位 体 ス テ ー ジ 2 お よ び ス テージ 1 初頭の古環境と石材獲得：比較考古学的展望
（Palaeoenvironment and lithic raw material acquisition during MIS2 and early MIS1: a comparative perspective）」を開催 した．
先史時代の人類をとりまく古環境と石器石材獲得活動 の相互関係を，およそMIS2 から完新世初頭に時期を絞 り，ヨーロッパと東アジアの事例の比較検討をめざして 実施した．黒曜石の産地推定をめぐる方法論上の問題 点，石器の使用痕跡と遺跡の性格の議論など，基礎的な 問題も合わせて報告と議論をおこなった．ポスターセッ ションは昼の時間帯にコアタイムをとり，研究対象は今 回のテーマだけに絞らず広く研究のテーマを設定し報告 と議論の機会を設けた．
明治大学黒耀石研究センターからは小野昭，島田和 高，橋詰潤，藤山龍造，眞島英壽が口頭報告を行った．
なお，会議の成果はOxford, ArchaeopressのArcheaopress
Archeaologyでの刊行を目指している．
ワークショップ終了後の 10 月 30 日には長野県長和町 へ移動し，30 日，31 日にワークショップへの招聘研究 者をセンター，広原湿原および周辺遺跡，茅野市尖石縄 文考古館へ案内する巡検を行った．本ワークショップ は，１）明治大学国際交流基金事業（申請代表者：眞島 英壽），２）学振科研基盤Ｂ（研究代表者：小野昭 課 題番号 15H03268），３）黒耀石研究センター費用により 実施した．
■日時：2017 年 10 月 28 日（土） 9:00 〜 17:15
■会場：明治大学駿河台キャンパス アカデミーコモン 8F A7-8 会議室
■Program:
9:00 － 9:05 Welcome address
Yoshiro Abe (Director of the Center for Obsidian and Lithic Studies)
9:05 － 9:15 Opening address by the organizer
Akira Ono (Center for Obsidian and Lithic Studies, Meiji
University, Japan) 9:15 － 9:45
1．Dieter Schäfer (University of Innsbruck, Austria) , The landscape archaeological project Ullafelsen (Austria) : updated results.
9:45 － 10:15
2．Stefano Bertola（University of Innsbruck, Austria）, Lithic raw material exploitation and circulation in Tyrol during early MIS1: The case-study of the Ullafelsen site (Sellrain, Innsbruck) .
10:15 － 10:45
3．Akira Ono (Center for Obsidian and Lithic Studies, Meiji University, Japan) , Obsidian acquisition and migration range in the Upper Plalaeolithic: A case of Mattobara site, north central Japan.
＜Break＞ 11:00 － 11:30
4．Ryuzo Fujiyama (Archaeology Department, Meiji University, Japan), Early Holocene human adaptation in the Japanese Archipelago.
11:30 － 12:00
5．Alfred Pawlik (University of the Philippines, the Philippines) , Human migration and maritime adaptation in the Philippines from the late Pleistocene to early/mid Holocene.
<Lunch break> Poster session core time 12:30-13:30 Posters Session:
Sara Ozaki (Graduate school, Meiji Univesrity), Raw material procurement, production, and distribution of lithics in the Terminal Phase of Pleistocene Hokkaido, Japan.
Takumi Sakamoto (Graduate school, Meiji Univesrity), Seasonal utilization of marine shellfish resources in Jomon prehistoric Japan.
Kyosuke Hori (Tokyo Metropolitan Archaeological Center), Settlement mobility and lithic technology of the late Upper Palaeolithic during the Last Glacial Maximum, southern Kanto region, Japan.
Eiko Endo (Center for Obisidan and Lithic Studies), Chasing Panicum miliaceum across Eurasia, using Replica-SEM method.
13:30 － 14:00 (Oral Session continued)
6．Hiroyuki Murata (Nagawa Town Board of Education, Japan) , Use-wear analysis of stone tools from Nagawa (Nagano Prefecture, Japan).
14:00 － 14:30
7．Hidehisa Mashima (Center for Obsidian and Lithic Studies, Meiji University, Japan) , Sourcing of Japanese obsidian with XRF.
14:30 － 15:00
8．Akihiro Yoshida (Geography Department, Kagoshima University, Japan) , Impact of landscape changes on
palaeoenvironmental study.
<Break>
15:15 － 15:45
9．Kazutaka Shimada (University Museum, Meiji University, Japan) , Obsidian procurement and accumulation process of a lithic assemblage at the Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Hiroppara II, Central Highlands, Japan.
15:45 － 16:15
10．Jun Hashizume (Center for Obsidian and Lithic Studies, Meiji University, Japan) , Human activity in and around obsidian sources: A case study from the Hirropara site I, Central Highlands of Japan.
16:15 － 17:15 ・Discussion
■Organizing committee:
Yoshiro Abe Akira Ono
Kazutaka Shimada, Secretariat Hidehisa Mashima
Jun Hashizume
■ Sponsored by:
・Meiji University International Exchange Fund
・ Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Number:15H03268
・Center for Obsidian and Lithic Studies, Meiji University
■Abstracts:
The landscape archaeological project Ullafelsen:
updated results Dieter Schäfer
Department of Archaeology, University of Innsbruck The Ullafelsen site (northern Stubai Alps, Austria) is the central part of a geoarchaeological project executed since 1994 at the University of Innsbruck. A growing number of scientists cover several relationships between man and environment for the Late Glacial and Early Holocene (Schäfer 2011). The bedrock is situated in the Fotsch valley around 20 km southwest of Innsbruck (Austria) at 1869 m above sea level (m asl).
Selected updated results switch between macro- and microscale aspects:
- The Mesolithic living floor in this region is a grey light layer (LL) with a primary eolian origin. The most ancient site in the Fotsch valley is the Kaseralmschrofen 1 km north of Ullafelsen. Very soon after the Younger Dryas (regionally known as Egesen stadial) Mesolithic foragers here left a small inventory including some artefacts of south alpine cherts. This is the first evidence for alpine crossing among early Holocene
LL thus possibly demonstrating a still ongoing eolian sedimentation process.
The other Mesolithic sites in the region are not only situated on higher altitudes but become gradually younger with growing altitude distances. Therefore can be assumed a correlation between the climate-induced rising treeline and the settlement/activity behavior of Mesolithic foragers within similar landscapes.
- The main cryptocrystalline lithic raw material of the Ullafelsen site can be attributed to the following primary sources (analysis S. Bertola; e.g. Bertola and Schäfer 2011; Bertola 2014; ):
(a) 38.5 % Northern Calcareous Alps (Jurassic UpperAllgäu and Chiemgau Formation of the Karwendel and Rofan mountains, Tyrol, Austria );
(b) 36.2 % Southern Alps (Cretaceous Scaglia Rossa / Scaglia Variegats Formation of the Val di Non, Trento area, Italy);
(c) 25.3 % South Franconian Alb (Jurassic Malm Formation, region around Kelheim/Danube, Bavaria, Germany) [100%=2921 examined artefacts]
These quantities give evidence for well-established networks within the second half of the Preboreal. The assumption of S. Kozlowski “The Alps effectively separated the Sauveterrian of Italy and France from the Beuronian of Germany, Switzerland and Austria…” (Kozlowski 2009, 92) cannot be confirmed: We even have several other Mesolithic sites which exhibit chert artefacts of south alpine origin.
- Specific features of these chert groups at the Ullafelsen allowed to define 152 refitted artefact complexes with together 458 integrated single objects. Partially they offer interesting insight into reduction sequences, re-sharpening of tools and estimations about the amount of used raw material with one settlement phase.
- The combination of specific features and finds at the Ullafelsen, spatial pattern of the refitted complexes and calibrated data of fireplaces allow to find out interesting aspects of internal sequences and functional aspects of the site.
References
S. Bertola, The raw material variability in the Mesolithic site of Ullafelsen (Sellrain, Tyrol, Austria). In: M. Yamada and A. Ono (Eds.) Lithic raw material exploitation and circulation in Prehistory. A comparative perspective in diverse palaeoenvironments. ERAUL 138, 2014, 93-101. S. Bertola / D. Schäfer, Jurassic cherts from the Kelheim
district (Bavaria, Germany) in the Lower Mesolithic assemblage of the Ullafelsen. In: D. Schäfer, (Hrsg.), Das Mesolithikum-Projekt Ullafelsen (Teil 1). Mensch und Umwelt im Holozän Tirols 1 (Innsbruck 2011) 523 -534.
S.K. Kozlowski, Thinking Mesolithic (Oxford 2009).
D. Schäfer, Das Mesolithikum-Projekt Ullafelsen (Teil 1).
Mensch und Umwelt im Holozän Tirols 1 (Innsbruck 2011).
Lithic raw material exploitation and circulation in Tyrol during early MIS1: The case-study of the Ullafelsen site
(Sellrain, Innsbruck) Stefano Bertola
Institute of Geology, University of Innsbruck Introduction
The Lower Mesolithic site of Ullafelsen is one of the most important and well documented sites in the whole Central Alps, representing a key-site for the entire region. Since the beginning of the studies it was clear that most of the raw material were brought to the site from other areas.
Description of the assemblage
The Ullafelsen lithic assemblage consists of more than 8.000 artefacts. The following data derive from the study of a sample of 2347 artefacts bigger than 1 cm (perimeter). Three main areas were identified on the basis of their provenance:
lower Germany, Austria and northern Italy.
1. Jurassic cherts from the Frankonian Alb, Bavaria (21,4%) The groups of artefacts described can be attributed with high certainty to the upper Jurassic cherts from the
“Plattenkalke” of southern Franconian Alb. A number of indications support this hypothesis: firstly, the macroscopic features of the samples (color, structure, cortex) and secondly, the study of the characteristic microfacies that revealed the fine algal lamination alternated with graded and bioclastic horizons.
Two different groups of artefacts have been recognized (Bertola and Schäfer 2011; 2013).
Group 1. The color and texture of the cherts are inhomogeneous. The texture shows laminations and bands, also discontinuous, providing the chert a marbled texture.
Group 2. This group is smaller (7,9%) and better silified than group 1 (26,1%). It includes litotypes that can be compared with the geological specimen from Abensberg–
Arnhofen.
2. Cretaceous flints from Southern Alps, Italy (29,8%) A group of artefacts is compatible with flint outcrops situated on the southern slope of the Alps (Trentino, Italy).
The litotypes belong to the Scaglia Rossa and the Scaglia Variegata Alpina formations (Bertola, 2011a). The nearest (about 120 km, straight line to Ullafelsen) outcrops are localized in the Non Valley (BZ). The Ullafelsen artefacts parallels the lithic resources of the Non Valley with respect to: a) the narrow chronological interval represented; b) the lack of flint types which are very characteristic of the outcrops situated more towards the south. The Adige Valley seems to
have been the preferred way for these movements or long distance exchanges.
3. Jurassic radiolarian cherts from Northern Limestones Alps, Tyrol (34%)
Detailed researches on the local (within 50 km) Triassic to Cretaceous NCA sedimentary series (Bertola in press), allowed to state that the better suitable cherts belong to the Jurassic interval. We can refer all the artefacts to two geological formations: Ruhpolding (upper Jurassic: the red litothypes) and upper Allgäu /Chiemgau (middle Jurassic:
the gray and green litothypes) (Bertola 2011b, in press). The better and widest chert outcrops have been sampled in the area between the eastern Karwendel and the western Rofan (Achen Valley and surroundings, around 40-50 km east / north east of Ullafelsen). The following comparisons of the samples with the artefacts confirmed the strong analogies. This area, easily accessible along the Inn valley, till now represent an important way to the Bavaria. Maybe the groups bearing the Bavarian cherts provisioned also in this area. In the NCA mesolithic people provisioned in some defined areas and with some defined chert types.
4. Quartz artefacts from Central Eastern Alps, Tyrol (14,8%) The quartz artefacts can be divided in two categories.
1. Rough quartz lenses forming into the gneiss sequences.
This kind of quartz is quite common in the metamorphic environment of the central Alps, as well as in the surroundings of the Ullafelsen site (Stubai Alps). It is a very bad material for knapping and was seldom used (1,1%).
2. Rock crystal. This kind of quartz is absent in the surroundings of the Ullafelsen site. It was a material particularly researched for its flaking suitability, even if difficult to find. It grew inside fissures mainly in the inner parts of the whole Alps, along the central axis. Nearby the Ullafelsen site the Tuxer Alps and the Zillertal Alps are the richest areas of such minerals, the former situated 40-50 kilometers east of the site, near the border with Italy. A study confirmed the compatibility of the Ullafelsen artefacts with the minerals of this region even if other provenance areas cannot be excluded (Niedermayr, 2011). The amount of artefacts done with this material is 13,7%.
Discussion
In early Holocene times probably different Mesolithic groups frequented the site of Ullafelsen (Bertola 2014).
There is a general concordance between the raw materials provenance and their cultural attribution, even if this is visible only in a few typical artefacts. Among the Franconian cherts some elements suggest a Beuronian tradition whilst among the Southern Alps cherts and the rock crystal there are typical Sauveterrian tools. The attribution of the closest Northern Calcareous Alps cherts is more doubtful. Different raw materials and different cultural traditions are represented in the same site in the lower Mesolithic of the Stubai Alps.