This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2010 Massachusetts Archaeological Society. 34 The Bulletin is growing and changing. We have been gratified to receive manuscripts from authors who have appeared frequently in the journal, and from many others not heard from before. Readers have been in touch, informally, to let us know that they have noticed the changes and to comment on them, pro and con. The Editorial Board earnestly solicits comments raised in the Bulletin; we would like to reinstate a Letters feature for the discussion of matters of interest and concern. In this issue, there are elements of both the familiar and the novel, which we hope you wfll find stimulating. For instance, some of our authors measure metrically, others in English units. Whenever we anticipated problems of translation, we have added equivalents in parentheses. Comparison ofthe two systems should help us all as the country makes the transition from our old, familiar, somewhat irrational system to the scientifically regular system which serves the rest of the world. Similarly, some of the authors use the MAS artifact classification; others use the "anthropological" taxonomy, with its abundance of type names. The latter system is frequently identified by MAS members with Dr. William A. Ritchie of New York, but in fact it is a system of nomenclature and description of artifacts used widely in North America. Although both systems appear on these pages, there will be no "translating" from one system to the other. The two artifact taxonomies, in fact, do not measure exactly the same qualities and, therefore, are not equivalent in the sense that an English inch equals 2.54 centimeters. The MAS classification has grown over the years as a device to facilitate the arrangement, inventorying, and discussion of collections of specimens. It is based on readily perceived The discovery of a major lithic workshop in the metropolitan Boston area seems as unlikely as fmding an undisturbed multi-component site in the middle of Boston Common. This newly-discovered stone source is easily as impressive as that discovered on the western slopes of the Blue Hills (Dincauze 1974:39), and its materials are represented at many eastern Massachusetts sites. Because this stone is especially abundant at FROM THE EDITOR'S NOTEPAD DENA F. DINCAUZE DISCOVERY OF ANEW MAJOR ABORIGINAL LITHIC SOURCE WILLIAM F. BOWMAN and GERALD D. ZEOLI contrasts of geometric forms and their principal modifications (e.g. side-notching). The "anthropological" system of nomenclature (which has no formal title) is a far more elaborate means to describe and measure spatial and temporal differences among artifact populations. The method emphasizes those characteristics ("attributes") of artifacts which are differentially distributed in time and space. Particular combinations of these attributes, which characterize different populations of artifacts, are assumed to have cultural relevance. Tbe artifact "types" which are defined are base on detailed analyses of artifact attributes within assemblages derived, ideally, from closed excavational contexts. The type names usually refer to the site or component from which a particular attribute combination was first, or best, defined. The two classification systems sometimes overlap, and rarely coincide, but they are not closely comparable in their structure or in their applications. They are neither equivalent nor congruent, and so cannot readily be compared. Of course, artifacts may be classified in either or both systems. During the present editorship, either system will be acceptable for publication, so long as it is used consistently within an article. MAS members who learn both "languages" will find a wider range of publications available to them, and will be able to move comfortably among journals from other states and on into professional journals and books. The new referencing format in the Bulletin is intended to facilitate readers' access to this literature. Amherst, Mass. February 1977 sites along the coast, the writers had once believed that the source was restricted to some tidal marsh or mud flat, and was only periodically accessible to the aboriginal quarriers. However, most of the authors' experience with archaeological sites has been coastal, and therefore their unfamiliarity with inland excavations limited their conceptions of the range and abundance of the source material on inland sites. 3? #0 3