article

The Norton interaction sphere: an orientation

Arctic anthropology19 (2) • Published In 1982 • Pages: 3-10

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

Abstract
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.
Subjects
Identification
Reviews and critiques
Theoretical orientation in research and its results
Chronologies and culture sequences
Typologies and classifications
tradition
Norton
Region
North America
Sub Region
Arctic and Subarctic
Document Type
article
Evaluation
Creator Type
Archaeologist
Document Rating
4: Excellent Secondary Data
Notes
Robert D. Shaw and Charles E. Holmes
Includes bibliographical references (p. 8-10)
LCCN
sf78000711
LCSH
Eskimos--Antiquities