The development of experimental flint knapping programs allowed for the identification of stigmas related to the use of soft hammerstone percussion. Pelegrin (2000) explored the limits and constraints of the use of this type of percussion and since the first publication of these distinctive stigmas this technique was identified in assemblages from different chronologies in Europe and the Near East. The random identification of stigmata evoking the use of soft hammerstone in the lithic collection of layer 3 of Lapa dos Coelhos led to a systematic registration of certain attributes during the study of other Magdalenian collections of Portuguese Estremadura (Abrigo 1 de Vale de Covoes, Cabeco de Porto Marinho). A total of 1303 pieces (complete or proximal fragments) was studied. In terms of methodology, theoretical data and confrontation with experimental knapped series supported our analyses and therefore we systematically recorded the following attributes: butt type (cortical, flat, dihedral, faceted, microfaced, linear, punctiform, crushed and retouched), presence of lip, traces of abrasion (slight or marked), presence of cracking in the percussion cone, existence of fine concentric wrinkles from the percussion bulb and presence of an irregular butt line. The analysis and quantification of these percussion stigmas allowed us to identify a significant number of pieces with evidence of soft hammer (organic and mineral) for bladelet production: the percentage of abrasion (slight or marked) and lip is 40%. In variable proportions, but always present, we identified diagnostic stigmas associated with the use of soft hammerstone percussion: cracking of the percussion cone, scabbing of the bulb, irregular butt line and fine and concentric wrinkles from the percussion cone. According to Pelegrin (2000) the occurrence of these stigmas is reduced (in the order of 20%) and variable. We conclude that the recurrent association of distinctive characters suggests that the use of soft hammerstone would have been significant. The absence of data from other chronologies doesn’t allow for an effective comparison of the Upper Palaeolithic sequence: In the sample observed, however, the use of a soft hammerstone seems to have increased during Final Magdalenian. What advantage in the use of a soft hammerstone justifies an increase of its use during the final Magdalenense? According to Pelegrin (2000) there are no advantages compared to the use of an organic hammer: technical execution is no longer easy, abrasion is almost mandatory, therefore it is necessary to prepare the volume prior to debitage. In this case, could there be any economic motivation? The lithological environment of Estremadura makes it easy to obtain hammers of limestone, flint, or thick sandstone. On the other hand, we know that during the Tardiglacial there was a reduction in the catch and consumption of medium and large animals and an increase in the consumption of small animals (Bicho et al. 2000; Bicho et al. 2011; Davis 2002; Gameiro et al. 2017). Could this explain the difficulty in obtaining, and use as a hammer, cervid rods, for example? Pelegrin (2000) hypothesized an eventual relationship with alterations in hunting strategies: during the Tardiglacial the weapons are equipped with lithic tips, causing a need to produce more lithic barbs. Throughout the Tardiglacial, in Portuguese Estremadura we know that, not only increases the typological diversity, but also the amount of armatures (Zilhao 1997; Bicho 1997; 2000; Gameiro 2012). It seems plausible, but impossible to demonstrate, that these economic data are linked to the preferential choice of a type of hammer. The fortuitous and expeditious use of a natural resource easily accessible may have motivated and conditioned a cultural option. Although the evidence presented is still scarce these data should be considered because it is essential for the reconstitution of the spectrum of technical choices made in the past.

中文翻译：

---

葡萄牙佩德拉布兰达公司的股份公司

实验火石打捆程序的发展允许确定与使用软锤石打击乐器有关的污名。Pelegrin（2000）探索了这种打击乐器使用的局限性和局限性，自从这些独特的烙印首次发表以来，这项技术已在欧洲和近东的不同年代被发现。在对Lapa dos Coelhos的第3层的石器收藏中使用软锤石的柱头的随机鉴定导致在研究葡萄牙Estremadura的其他抹大拉的收藏时（Abrigo 1 de Vale de Covoes，Cabeco de马里尼奥港）。共研究了1303件（完整或近端碎片）。就方法论而言 理论数据和与实验折线的对峙支持了我们的分析，因此，我们系统地记录了以下属性：对接类型（皮质，扁平，二面体，刻面，微面，线性，点状，压碎和修饰），嘴唇的存在，磨损痕迹（轻微或明显），敲击锥中有裂纹，敲击球上有细小的同心皱纹以及不规则的对接线。对这些敲击声柱头的分析和定量分析使我们能够鉴定出大量的有软锤（有机和矿物质）的叶片制造刀片：磨损（轻微或明显）和嘴唇的百分比为40％。以可变的比例（但始终存在），我们确定了与使用软质锤击乐器有关的诊断污名：敲击锥开裂，灯泡擦伤，不规则的对接线以及敲击锥上出现细小且同心的皱纹。根据Pelegrin（2000），这些柱头的出现减少（大约20％）并且变化多端。我们得出的结论是，反复出现的独特字符表明使用软质锤石非常重要。缺少其他年代的数据不能有效地比较上古石器时代的序列：但是，在观察到的样本中，似乎在最后的马格达林时期增加了使用软重锤石。使用软锤石有什么优势可以证明在最后的抹大拉格尼斯酒中增加使用量？根据Pelegrin（2000），与使用有机锤相比，没有任何优势：技术执行变得不再容易，几乎必须进行磨损，因此有必要在借记之前准备好体积。在这种情况下，是否会有经济动机？Estremadura的岩性环境使其易于获得石灰石、,石或厚砂岩的锤子。另一方面，我们知道，在大地龙蝗期间，中型和大型动物的捕捞和消费量减少，小型动物的消费量增加（Bicho等人，2000； Bicho等人，2011； Davis，2002； 2002）。 Gameiro et al.2017）。例如，这可以解释难以获得或用作锤子的子宫颈杆吗？Pelegrin（2000）推测最终可能与狩猎策略的改变有关：在塔吉克林采战役期间，武器装备有石制笔尖，导致需要生产更多的石制倒钩。纵观整个Tardiglacial，在葡萄牙的Estremadura，我们知道，不仅增加了类型学上的多样性，而且还增加了电枢的数量（Zilhao 1997； Bicho 1997； 2000； Gameiro 2012）。这些经济数据似乎与锤子的优先选择有关，这似乎是合理的，但却无法证明。偶然获得自然资源的偶然性和迅速使用可能激发了文化选择并为其提供了条件。尽管所提供的证据仍然很少，但是应该考虑这些数据，因为这对于重构过去做出的技术选择至关重要。Bicho 1997；2000; Gameiro 2012）。这些经济数据似乎与锤子的优先选择有关，这似乎是合理的，但却无法证明。偶然获得自然资源的偶然性和迅速使用可能激发了文化选择并为其提供了条件。尽管所提供的证据仍然很少，但应该考虑这些数据，因为这对于重构过去做出的技术选择至关重要。Bicho 1997；2000; Gameiro 2012）。这些经济数据似乎与锤子的优先选择有关，这似乎是合理的，但却无法证明。偶然获得自然资源的偶然性和迅速使用可能激发了文化选择并为其提供了条件。尽管所提供的证据仍然很少，但是应该考虑这些数据，因为这对于重构过去做出的技术选择至关重要。