@Conference Paper {10384,
	title = {Is there an archaeologist in the house? : degrees of fact in the analysis of habitations},
	year = {1981},
	address = {Edmonton},
	abstract = {In recent years, archaeologists have been presenting a great deal of {\textquoteright}detail{\textquoteright} in conclusions rising out of their analyses of habitation units. Such attempts are sometimes said to resemble a person trying to split a hair into four quarters with an axe. Nevertheless, many would argue that this is the direction prehistoric archaeology must go if we are ever to leave the descriptive and {\textquoteright}broad framework{\textquoteright} stage of research. Examples from the Quebec subarctic discuss the form and placement of structures without postmoulds, the size of groups occupying them, the organisation of social space within and without these structures, the location of technical activities carried out by persons of each sex, the season(s) and intensity of occupation, purpose (within proposed schemes of exploitation) of occupation as well as its broader cultural affiliations and age. To date, these efforts are troubled by the application of lithic analyses based on {\textquoteright}traditional{\textquoteright} European data, or on data still insufficiently modified by experimentation. Still further, they suffer through the use of insufficiently researched or inappropriately applied ethnographic data. Published, unpublished and ongoing Quebec examples are examined in the light of existing and perhaps more appropriate data and methodologies},
	author = {Chism, J.}
}
