and Mississippi, and occur elsewhere as well. The pattern, size and number of concavities is not predictable, nor is material—impressions are found in soft sandstone and hard granite. Cupstones may exhibit a mixture of large and small indentations, perhaps indicating multiple uses over a considerable span of time. Indentations range from barely visible 1/16" to 6". Examination under magnification suggests the impressions were at least in some cases formed by rotary grinding, particularly in softer rocks. In most cases, archeological evidence of cupstones on hard rock surfaces and monoliths indicates that they were created by direct percussion with rock hammers. Typical impressions are of the simple pit type, though some cavities have been excavated to produce an opened-sphere type of pocket, by means and for reasons unknown. Very large specimens weighing several tons and with dozens of impressions several inches across are thought to be cult objects; they have been found throughout the Mississippi Valley. Historic accounts There are several ethnographic accounts of the Native use of nutting stones in the historic times. One account says "the Virginia Indians in 1587 tells us that each household had stones for cracking nuts and for grinding shell and other materials." It goes on to say that "This statement would doubtless be equally true if applied at that time to almost any tribe inhabiting the section east of the Mississippi." In Hawaii, cup and ring marks are associated with petroglyphs, and those occurring in the boundary regions of Apuki and Puna lands have been used as depositories for a child's navel cord, a custom also observed in other Polynesian peoples. Interpretation Early observers saw the processing of mast using stones, and one later recreation achieved similar results: nuts were placed, one at a time, on stone (an "anvil" stone) and then struck with a smaller "hammer" stone: "As nuts were cracked in this manner a pit developed in the lower stone; the pit deepened as additional nuts were cracked, and this facilitated the cracking process since nuts were held rather stationary in this 'seat.'" The most likely interpretation seems that these artifacts represent a single technique of shaping or adapting stone for multiple purposes, some unguessed (for instance, the function of the smallest pits) and that the objects could be used by single or multiple individuals over long periods of time, and for various purposes. Indeed, the apparent randomness of their distribution may