aarch

I'm not sure if this helps, but I know of a recent PhD grad from UNC Chapel Hill who specializes in Roman bioarchaeology, so it's presumably a viable option. As long as a program has a good Roman archaeologist and a good bioarchaeologist (preferably working on relevant issues), I think you'd be perfectly okay. The bioarchaeologist at my university advises PhD students working in places as disparate as Peru and Israel, and they've had a pretty good track record at winning major fellowships and awards. An upside to not having a Roman bioarchaeologist as an advisor is that you won't be one of those PhD students who graduates as a virtual clone of his/her Doktorvater.

As I suspected, virtually everyone who received a funded offer accepted. I don't think anyone will be accepted from the waitlist.

I meant to respond to this earlier... UCLA was on spring break last week. Professors have been very busy the last two weeks with the flurry of activity that comes at the end of the quarter - making exams, finishing grading, finalizing their teaching plans for spring, etc. This week is the first week of spring classes, and that is a very hectic time as well. Professors are busy people. It doesn't help that major conferences like the SAA, ARCE, AAPA, etc. are right around the corner. As for your last question, I doubt many people have a clear first choice and decide right away. Choosing a graduate program is a very serious thing, and one should take one's time doing so, as annoying as it may be to others. Some people are still visiting their choices and deciding between them. Other students may be waiting to hear back from the waitlist of *their* top choices; it is often a domino effect.

Where'd you get that info? The first to commit did so over three weeks ago. Be patient, you should hear back soon.

Responding to this question rather late...but yes, obviously there's a place for them. Why on earth wouldn't there be? People of all stripes study things like history, religion, and philosophy. You don't have to be Chinese to study Chinese history, you don't have to be Jewish to study Judaism, and you don't have to be female to study women's studies. A friend of mine recently TAed for an introductory LGBT studies course at our university, and most people in the class didn't identify as LGBT; they were just interested in the subject. Good. Props to them for getting out of their comfort zones. Academia should be a free exchange of ideas, and there is no need whatsoever for the zealous guarding of an academic domain and the marking of territory. The comfort level may well depend on the philosophy of the department. The split between Women's Studies and Gender Studies can be rather noticeable between departments or universities, and the political/activist bent of a department can vary wildly. If one is interested in gender as a component of a larger topic (say, psychology, sociology, or anthropology), one should consider getting a degree in that field and completing the requirements for a women's/gender studies certificate, which are increasingly common. A PhD in women's studies certainly isn't the only option and often isn't the best.

Funding offers have gone out, so right now they have to wait on responses from the admitted students before deciding how many (if any) get taken off the waitlist.

I don't think the waitlist works that way. In any case, there's 2-3 students each for most of the specialties invited this year. (Not every area gets students every year.)

9 students were invited to the prospective students week. About 6 students enroll each year. Given that about 1/2 to 2/3 of the invited students will enroll, I wouldn't get my hopes up as a waitlisted applicant. I think few (if any) of the most selective archaeology programs have to resort to the waitlist very often.