The Conowingo site (18CE14) is described in the literature as a Late Archaic-Late Woodland seasonal base camp supported by a series of exploitive procurement camps supplying non-local lithic materials. This description of one of the largest pre-contact sites in Maryland has been de rigueur since the site was excavated by the Archaeological Society of Maryland in 1981–1982. Multiple severe flooding episodes have ensured that later excavations have not supplied much data to alter this narrative. However, the currently accepted time of occupation and interpretation of site function do not include data from over 100 years of avocational archaeologists collecting artifacts from the site. Analysis of the Stearns collection from the 1930s indicates the presence of Early and Middle Archaic components, and a much heavier reliance on local lithic materials than initially inferred.
AdamsJL (2002) Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. Salt Lake City, Utah: The University of Utah Press.
2.
BamforthDB (1986) Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity51(1): 38–50.
3.
BradleyBA (2011) Lithic reduction sequences: A glossary and discussion. In: SwansonEH (eds) Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools. Chicago, Illinois: Mouton Publishers, 5–13.
4.
CarrKWMoellerRW (2015) First Pennsylvanians: The Archaeology of Native Americans in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission.
5.
ClarksonC (2016) Lithics and landscape archaeology. In: DavidBThomasJ (eds) Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. New York, New York: Routledge, 490–501.
6.
CoppockGF (2008) Shriver chert acquisition: A case study from snyder county, pennsylvania. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology24: 113–140.
7.
CusterJF (1982) A reconsideration of the middle woodland cultures of the upper delmarva Peninsula. In: MoellerRW (eds) Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations. Washington, Connecticut: American Indian Archaeological Institute, Occasional Paper 3, 29–38.
8.
CusterJF (2001) Classification Guide for Arrowheads and Spearpoints of Eastern Pennsylvania and the Central Middle Atlantic. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission.
9.
DobresM-AHoffmanCR (1994) Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory1: 211–258.
10.
GardnerWM (1982) Early and middle woodland in the middle atlantic: an overview. In: MoellerRW (eds) Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations. Occasional Papers of the American Indian Archaeological Institute No. 3, Institute for American Indian Studies,Washington, Connecticut,53–87.
11.
HannaC (1911) The Wilderness Trail. New York, New York: GP Putnam's Sons.
12.
HatchJMillerP (1985) Procurement, tool production, and sourcing research at the Vera Cruz Jasper Quarry in pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology12(2): 219–230.
13.
JeskeRJ (1992) Energetic efficiency and lithic technology: an upper mississippian example. American Antiquity57(3): 467–481.
14.
KnoblockBW (1939) Banner-stones of the North American Indian. LaGrange, Illinois: Published by the author.
15.
KwasML (1981) Bannerstones as chronological markers in the southeastern United States. Tennessee Anthropologist6(2): 144–171.
16.
KwasML (1982) Bannerstones: A historical overview. Journal of Alabama Archaeology28(2): 155–178.
17.
LutzDL (2000) The Archaic Bannerstone: Its Chronological History and Purpose, From 6000 BC to 1000 BCWisconsin: Hynek Printing, Richland Center.
18.
MaryeWB (1938) Petroglyphs near bald friar. In: MooreheadWK (eds) A Report of the Susquehanna River Expedition. Andover, Massachusetts: The Andover Press, 97–121.
McNamaraJM (1985) Conowingo: A late archaic through woodland manifestation in the lower Susquehanna river valley. Maryland Archeology21(2): 1–35.
22.
MurthaTMScheetzBE (2021) Sourcing the source: bald eagle jasper quarries and the Houserville habitation Complex. North American Archaeologist42(4): 402–419.
23.
OdellGH (2004) Lithic Analysis. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
24.
SaraTRWaltersPMundtJ, et al. (2012) Conowingo Project Relicensing Application: Harford and Cecil Counties Maryland and Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania, Phase IB Archaeological Survey of Nine High Priority Areas of Interest (AOIs 6, 18, 19, 33, 36A, 36B, 38, 39, and 45). Submitted to Exelon Generation Company, LLC. Copies available from Inc. TRC Environmental, Lanham, Maryland.
25.
SassamanKERandallAR (2007) The cultural history of Bannerstones in the Savannah river valley. Southeastern Archaeology26(2): 196–211.
26.
SpiessAE (2004) A winged Bannerstone from maine: stone and perishable archaic technology. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society65(2): 42–52.
27.
StearnsRE (1943) Some Indian Village Sites of Tidewater Maryland. The Natural History Society of Maryland: Proceeding No. 9. Copies available from the Natural History Society of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.
28.
StewartRM (1987) Rhyolite quarry and quarry-related sites in maryland and pennsylvania. Archaeology of Eastern North America15: 47–58.
29.
TharpJ (2013) From preform to finished Bannerstone. Central States Archaeological Journal60(1): 13–17.
30.
TorrenceR (editor) (1989) Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
TRC Environmental, Inc (2012) Shoreline Management Plan, Conowingo Project, FERC Project Number 405. Submitted to Exelon Corporation, Darlington, Maryland.
32.
TylerJLAndrewsZWardJA (2017) A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Pumphrey Property, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust, #AN 705, prepared by Applied Archaeology and History Associates, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland.
