An analysis of the theoretical and methodological changes that have occurred in Costa Rican archaeology is not a easy task… the models that have been used up to now are the Cultural Historical model and the Cultural Process model, with an additional period that we might call the pre-paradigm period in which there was no theoretical model to guide archaeological investigation.

The Non-Scientific/Speculative Period, 1492–1840

Arias (1982, 4) referred to this as the Pre-Paradigm Period, characterized by the speculations of early chroniclers and conquistadors and later travelers who wrote about the “life-styles” of the unknown peoples they encountered. They reported customs that were strange, exotic, and foreign to the rapidly dominant European culture.

Scientific Research, 1840–Present
The Classificatory-Descriptive Period, 1840–1914.

This period includes Fonseca’s (1992, 15) “period of the pioneers of Costa Rican archaeology” (1850–1925) in which he mentions both Anastasio Alfaro and Carl V. Hartman as being inseparable from the pioneer archaeological effort. Alfaro was trained in museum work at the Smithsonian Institution, “excavated” at the site of Guayabo de Turrialba, and in 1887 founded the National Museum of Costa Rica. Hartman, a Swedish botanist like Bovallius, provided some of the first knowledge of mortuary patterns in Costa Rica, conducting research at both Las Mercedes on the Atlantic watershed and at Las Guacas on the Nicoya peninsula. His practice of carefully recording excavation contexts produced volumes of information that are still of great use.

Taking a broader approach, Arias classified the entire period from 1840 to 1960 as the “synchronic descriptive period,” which focused on describing cultures as composed of particular norms and customs, but without an emphasis on temporal change or interrelationships between groups.

Echoing Fonseca’s statement, Stone (1984, 27) suggested that Anastasio Alfaro could be considered “the father of Costa Rican archaeology.” I would narrow that accolade slightly to a more specific recognition as the father of “museum archaeology” in Costa Rica.

Both Bransford and Flint, previously mentioned in the section on Nicaragua, crossed briefly into northwestern Costa Rica and recorded data from the areas of the Bay of Culebra and the Bay of Salinas, respectively. This was an early reflection of the historical and political unity of the Rivas and Nicoya areas, and an early indication of the relative unity of “Greater Nicoya,” a concept later further developed by Lothrop (1926), Norweb (1964), and Lange (1971).

The Classificatory-Historical Period, 1914–1940.

In the local Costa Rican sequence, this correlates roughly with Fonseca’s (1992, 15) “Period of Synchronic Description” (1925–1960). Certain aspects of the previous period continued, as reflected in the studies of Jorge Lines and the early publications of Doris Stone and Samuel Lothrop, but overall there was little archaeological activity.

Chronological Concerns, 1914–1940.

As in Nicaragua, in Costa Rica we see a time lag in the development of local chronological sequences when compared with such developments in other parts of the Western Hemisphere. Until the early 1960s, Costa Rican archaeology was dependent on cross-dating with external sequences.

Context and Function, 1940–1960.

During this period Carlos Aguilar Piedra began to train as an archaeologist with studies in Mexico and at the University of Kansas, and in 1953 became professor of archaeology and the main force behind the development of the archaeology program at the University of Costa Rica. He conducted research at the highland site of Retes in the 1950s and sparked public interest in Costa Rican archaeology with the discovery of wooden artifacts preserved beneath a volcanic ash fall. He is the father of modern archaeology in Costa Rica.

This also was the period during which modern