article

The Norton interaction sphere: an orientation

Arctic anthropology • 19 (2) • Published In 1982 • Pages: 3-10

By: Shaw, Robert Dane, Holmes, Charles E..

AbstractBrief abstract written by HRAF anthropologists who have done the subject indexing for the document

Shaw and Holmes discuss the confusion and ambiguity surrounding the definition Norton. Part of this confusion is due to the history of the term which evolved over several years. The authors point out that the researchers use the same term to mean a component, phase, tradition, culture, stage, complex, period, or variant without defining it as such. They introduce the term 'Norton Interaction Sphere' to cover all of the above and urge researchers to be specific about whether they mean a component, phase, etc. when discussing Norton. The confusion is also due to the fact that similar archaeological assemblages can be found over a vast portion of Alaska, both geographically and chronologically. Despite this large area relatively few archaeologicql sites have been excavated and written up. As more sites are explored which have their collections adquately described and which have good chronologies, regional variations will become apparent. Only then will a real definition of the term Norton be possible.

SubjectsDocument-level OCM identifiers given by the anthropology subject indexers at HRAF

Identification

Reviews and critiques

Theoretical orientation in research and its results

Chronologies and culture sequences

Typologies and classifications

traditionCulture name from the Outline of World Cultures (OWC)

Norton

RegionThe area the document pertains to

North America

Sub RegionThe more specific area the document pertains to, which is located within the Region

Arctic and Subarctic

Document TypeMay include journal articles, essays, collections of essays, monographs, or chapters/parts of monographs

article

Evaluation

Creator TypeThe type of person writing the document, e.g. Ethnographer, Missionary, Archaeologist, Folklorist, Linguist, Indigenous Person, and so on.

Archaeologist

Document Rating A ranking done by HRAF anthropologists based on the strength of the source material on a scale of 1 to 5, as follows: 1 - poor; 2 - fair; 3 - good, useful data, but not uniformly excellent; 4 - excellent secondary data; 5 - excellent primary data.

4: Excellent Secondary Data

NotesAdditional notes

Robert D. Shaw and Charles E. Holmes

Includes bibliographical references (p. 8-10)

LCCNLibrary of Congress Control Number

sf78000711

LCSHLibrary of Congress Subject Headings

Eskimos--Antiquities