Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Archaeological methods are partly shaped by logics of hierarchy, rigid taxonomies, and single-axis distinctions and can result in the erasure and ignorance of non-dominant narratives in the archaeological record. Such adherence to scientism is characterized by a “methodological habitus” that unintentionally and uncritically standardizes and biases interpretations. Intersectionality and critical feminist science offer an avenue out of this habitus, as they resist deterministic taxonomies and overly confident reconstructions. To demonstrate how methodological habitus operates, we turn to the case of “zeacentrism” in the Americas to explore how quantitative and “objective” categorical analyses can flatten social experiences. Our approach embraces greater epistemological accountability in archaeological knowledge production—a deliberate reckoning with how methodological choices and interpretive habits are shaped by scientism, taxonomic essentialism, and unexamined assumptions about validity. Ultimately, we argue that hypothesis- and data-driven inquiry and theories of Intersectionality can be complementary, more fully recognizing the ambiguity inherent in our world.
Prince et al. (Sat,) studied this question.