Ethnic studies have recently received great em phasis in American historical archaeology. Three groups have commonly been studied: blacks or Af rican Americans, Hispanics, and Overseas Chinese (Staski n.d.). Each of these groups is seen as hav ing an emic identity within the historic period be ing studied, an identity which is connected to the identity held by members of the present groups that descend from these historical ancestors (Staski n.d.). Indeed, a major reason why these three groups are studied is the desire of these present groups to understand their ancestors. Due to prob lems with biased or incomplete written records (Deetz 1977:7-8), archaeology is embraced as a method of inquiry, of building a bridge of under standing between these present groups and their forebears. Such studies assume a continuity between the historical ethnic groups and their present descen dants, so that, for instance, in the case of African Americans, a certain category or definition of eth nicity will be common between an 18th-century slave and a modern black person. To date, archae ology has attempted to describe this connection, first, by establishing the presence and vitality of past ethnic groups from the archaeological record?for example, Ferguson's identification of Colono ceramics as the products of black crafts women (Ferguson 1980) and not of Native Amer icans, as had been thought previously (Noel Hume 1962a)?and second, by studying the "normative lives" of members of past groups. In the second instance, a narrative of everyday life is devised from which historical, social, or personal infer ences can be drawn by the group's modern stu dents. Neither of these approaches is, in any way, wrong or misdirected. The social purpose they serve, especially in revealing the proud history of groups who have been unjustly discredited in the past or present, is vitally important. In this pur pose, archaeology may serve well in creating a bond between present members of ethnic groups and their honored heritage as a way of fostering a strong, positive ethnic identity. Still, however, in simple procedural or technical terms, some prob lems may be encountered in fulfilling these most necessary functions. One problem is that any study which proceeds simply on the basis of identifying ethnic markers, but stops at this basic level, will likely prove too simplistic to be of much value. Colono ceramics again provide an example. Recent research (Fer guson n.d.) reveals that these ceramics are not sim ply the product of enslaved African Americans, but rather of Creole cultures created as adaptive responses to complex interactions between Afri cans, Native Americans, and Europeans, interac tions which, furthermore, varied by the different geographical and cultural arenas in which they took place. Using Colono ceramics as a simple ethnic marker which equates with African Ameri cans is an inaccurate oversimplification. A more serious problem concerns the uncritical acceptance of a simple equation between past and present ethnic groups. A Gambian Muslim, kid napped in Africa in the late 18th century, for ex ample, is certainly the ancestor of a modern black family (Haley 1976). Important questions remain, however, such as: Was his experience, as an Af rican, a Gambian, a Muslim, or as a slave in America, similar at all to the experience of a mod ern black American? Was this historical figure's own identity that of a black, an African, a Gam bian, or a Muslim, a combination of these, or all of them in some succession? Certain broad similari ties between this ancestor and his descendants may occur. The most unfortunate, perhaps, is the fact that each has experienced or will experience forms of oppression that are based in their ethnicity. Can these experiences be equated, and will each there fore have a similar ethnic identity? Archaeologists often assume that these questions have been an