Abstract
Capacity development is a key tool that can be used to improve maritime archaeological research and underwater cultural heritage protection. Despite numerous capacity development initiatives there has been little written about the theoretical concept of capacity or capacity development in maritime archaeology or even archaeology more generally. This paper borrows a theoretical concept of capacity from the environmental sciences literature and demonstrates how it can be applied to maritime archaeology through the examination of the situation in three case study States: Croatia, Italy and Montenegro. It argues that all aspects of the concept of capacity need to be understood before successful capacity development initiatives can be planned, and that the development of strategies for capacity development could initiate long term positive changes in maritime archaeological capabilities.
Highlights
Capacity is a broad concept, which can be defined as “the ability of people, organisations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully” (OECD 2012: 27)
Success is often measured by listing the numbers of actors trained, or the number of courses run (Manders and Underwood 2015: 748). Do these capacity development efforts succeed in raising capacity? On the face of it, it would seem that increasing the number of people that are trained and educated in maritime archaeology must improve capacity
Only three of the States have been used, Croatia, Italy and Montenegro, as these give a sufficient range of experiences to adequately demonstrate the concept of capacity and to explore the application of the analytical framework in the context of maritime archaeology
Summary
Capacity is a broad concept, which can be defined as “the ability of people, organisations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully” (OECD 2012: 27). Journal of Maritime Archaeology (2019) 14:391–408 of the activity in recent years being linked to the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Pro‐ tection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, either directly through the work of its sec‐ retariat, or undertaken in its name by other parties (UNESCO 2017; Favis et al 2012) These efforts usually focus on training actors in various aspects of maritime archae‐ ology or underwater heritage management (Anderson 2014; Manders and Underwood 2015). Success is often measured by listing the numbers of actors trained, or the number of courses run (Manders and Underwood 2015: 748) Do these capacity development efforts succeed in raising capacity? It is hoped that the conceptual frame‐ work presented in this article will assist archaeologists as they plan, undertake, and measure the impact of their capacity development efforts
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
