Introduction

Because of its potential for "describing and explaining culture change in prehistory (Santley, Yarborough, and Hall 1987)," ethnicity has increasingly become an interest to archaeologists focusing on complex societies (Schuyler 1980, Shennan 1989). Archaeologists have attempted to isolate patterns in the archaeological record that might be useful as indicators of the ethnicity of those responsible for the creation of the record. Through ethnicity, archaeologists have attempted to understand how culturally different people interact in complex societies, the relationship between ethnicity and subsistence strategies, and how material culture may reflect ethnicity. A model of ethnic behavior could provide the structure through which to unite various archaeological approaches to ethnicity.

According to McGuire (1982:162) archaeological approaches to ethnicity usually fall into one of three categories:
1. assimilation studies
2. ethnic pride studies
3. attempts to establish criteria for identifying specific ethnic groups.

Food remains, ceramics, and architecture have been the foci of most attempts to evaluate ethnicity archaeologically (McGuire 1982:162) and some of the more successful attempts have focused on food remains and food related technology (Crabtree 1990).

1. Food as an Indicator of Ethnicity

2. foodways are an important expression of ethnicity

3. Case Studies

4 Conclusions About The Ethnic Nature of Sepphoris(1987)

5. Conclusion About the Model

6. Bibliography