In the article the basic tendencies of ethnic interpretation of a stylistic variation in the archaeological record are stated. Despite the sceptical discussions of this question, ethnic interpretation remains one of the basic directions in archeology. Criticising the unilateral and tendentious character of the approach of G. Kossina in ethnic interpretation of artefacts, some researchers have accepted attempts to formulate a number of complex approaches among which the ethnoarchaeological studies play an important role. Ethnoarcheology, in some cases, confirms a parity of ethnic borders with material culture, in others this is not so. At the same time, the majority of researchers consider that the given parity should be observed in stylistic, instead of in typological distinctions. Unfortunately, the “stylistic” approach is also far from the decision of these interpretative archeological problems. Ethnic reconstructions demand more complex schemes, taking into account known factors and the contexts reflected, not only in an archaeological material. The contextual-historical approach was put forward in the first half of the last century, but, owing to its complexity, has not given exhaustive results. Probably, its synchronic-diachronic application to more limited archaeological areas will bring fruitful results. In this case, style and stylistic variations should play a key role.