Anyone familiar with prehistoric archaeology in the US Southeast is well aware of Joffre Coe's The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont (1964). Based on his excavations at three stratified sites in North Carolina, Coe was able to make sense of a number of hafted biface types previously known only from surface or plow zone contexts. Various hafted biface types were then associated with discrete periods. In the 50-plus years since the first publication of Formative Cultures, numerous sites have been excavated and new hafted biface types proposed. Reconsidering Coe's original work based on more recently acquired finds is long overdue. Such is I. Randolph Daniel Jr.'s task in Time, Typology, and Point Traditions in North Carolina Archaeology.

Three main issues guide Daniel's book: (1) dealing with ambiguities with respect to some type definitions, (2) the inclusion of more recently defined types, and (3) a reevaluation of the Formative Cultures cultural-historical sequence. Six chapters comprise the book. The first summarizes Coe's original Formative Cultures sequence, and it is a good refresher for those familiar with it, as well as a good overview for those new to it.

Chapter 2 outlines Daniel's communities-of-practice approach, which “provides a framework for understanding both the social conditions under which tool types were created and their transmission over time” (p. 14). Biface manufacture has one of the longest learning curves in chipped stone tool production, and it was most likely learned through a mentor–apprentice relationship. This would have encouraged a standardization of biface types by different groups. The result is the regional and temporal specific biface types that are recognized today. These traditions are then described and outlined based on biface types and sequences known from North Carolina.

Chapter 3 gives a detailed discussion of the types of stone available to prehistoric knappers in North Carolina, and Daniel notes that “in no other state in the Southeast is metavolcanic and metasedimentary stone used prehistorically to the degree that is found in North Carolina” (p. 34). The various material types are described along with the distribution of these materials. An understanding of the raw materials available for chipped stone tool manufacture is important, because access to materials affects myriad aspects of lithic technology (William Andrefsky Jr., “Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology,” American Antiquity 59:21–35, 1994).

Chapter 4 presents the various hafted biface types known in North Carolina along with detailed descriptions and photographs of representative specimens of each type. The goal here is not to redefine types but to standardize them. Types are organized by six main traditions, which are based on haft morphology of bifaces: fluted, side-notched, corner-notched, bifurcated, stemmed, and triangular. Existing types are reviewed and, where needed, refined based on more recent excavations. Here, Daniel distinguishes between describing and defining types. Describing types “simply lists a set of characteristics that a type may exhibit” (p. 36). Defining types “specifies the characteristics that a type must have to be a member of that type” (p. 36; emphasis in original). This distinction is somewhat reminiscent of Robert C. Dunnell's (Systematics in Prehistory, 1971) conceptual box in classification. Discussion of attributes diagnostic of hafted biface types will be of interest to archaeologists in North Carolina and surrounding states.

In Chapter 5, Daniel uses the information derived in Chapter 4 to further evaluate and refine Coe's Formative Cultures sequence. Date ranges for various biface types have been revised from those originally proposed by Coe. Larger samples from dated contexts and advances in radiocarbon dating since 1964 allow for more accurate and more precise ranges. Daniel then tries to provide cultural-historical links between the various biface types. This discussion is inspired, in part, by attempts to historicize the archaeological record (as in Kenneth E. Sassaman's The Eastern Archaic, Historicized, 2010, and other publications). Within each of the hafted biface traditions Daniel discusses, he demonstrates, where possible, historical links between types or cases where there were separate groups occupying different regions during the same time frames. Links between various types suggest cultural continuity as groups adopted new hafting technologies—such as, for example, the continuity from side-notching to corner-notching to bifurcate bases during the Early Archaic. The shift from corner-notched to bifurcate-base forms is seen as gradual modification in the haft area. The chapter ends with a summary of refinements to the original biface sequence and a discussion on future research.

Daniel's research has encompassed artifacts in private collections. Chapter 6 reflects on cooperation between private collectors and professional archaeologists. Daniel shows that some private collections have scientific value, and he advocates for increased interaction between avocational and professional archaeologists.

What sets this book apart from others about hafted biface typology in the US Southeast is that Daniel goes well beyond the identification of the different hafted biface types by placing the various types in sequence, and he provides a better understanding the culture-history of North Carolina. I find this to be an interesting book and a handy reference. Daniel focuses principally here on hafted bifaces from North Carolina, but there is much in the book that will be of interest to archaeologists in other areas of the United States and to specialists in the study of chipped stone tools.