Archaeology in an Art History Dept. for PhD?

[Grand cru]

I am having difficulty deciding between 2 programs in 1 university. I was accepted to both the Art History PhD program and the Anthropology PhD program at a well-respected university. My two previous degrees were a BA in Archaeology and an MPhil in Archaeological Science. The Art History program is guaranteeing me 1 more year of funding (plus possibly more) than the Anthropology program. The supervisor with whom I want to conduct research is in Art History, at least two new PhD students (one with an archaeology background) involved in my area of interest (Aegean/Eastern Med/Near East will also be joining the Art History program in the fall. I have talked with my potential Art History-based advisor on several occasions and we are certain that we can formulate a curriculum that will allow me to focus on (geo)archaeology and residue analysis whilst gaining sufficient knowledge in ancient art history. While my potential Anthro-advisor would be a great resource, his area/period of focus is a bit different than mine; nevertheless he would be a great resource and could potentially serve on my committee no matter the dept. If I accept Art History, I will also be allowed to take courses in Anthropology/Near Eastern Studies. My long-term goal is to able to be hired by any department (Archaeology, Classics, Near Eastern Studies, whatever...) for my expertise in the Aegean/East Med. and for my skills in geoarchaeology and focus on industrial production of alcohol/olive oil and trade/socio-political implications. I have consulted with my professors and am getting a mixed response as to whether I should join Art History. Their concern, as well as mine, primarily lies in my future marketability. I would very much appreciate it if any gradcafe members could offer their opinions as well?

[Shelley Burian]

Since this is old I doubt you will read it but for what its worth, I wouldn't go with art history simply because it doesn't sound as if you have any interest in the displine at all; your research sounds so far off that I would be double checking this professor's assurances to you with the department chair and the head of the graduate program. I would also speak to these new students. Just because someone has a background in archaeology and is in an art history department doesn't mean that they are still pursuing straight archaeology as it seems you want to do. Many students in ancient art have switched over from classics or archaology since many art history departments still don't have much to offer in this area (I am Pre-Columbian and that is definitely the case with us). Marketability is definitely going to be an issue unless you want to work in a museum, where crossover is very common and as long as you have the curatorial skills and experience they don't care much. As a museum person I have limited experience in the academic track but I would think that you will have difficulty because no matter how many outside classes they allow you to take, you won't be getting the same kind of theoretical base as an anthropology Ph.D student or a Classics one. I have actually heard from art history Ph.D. students that many (but not all!) classics departments really look down on people who choose art history as a focus within their department.

[Frostfire]

Regarding Classics departments and their attitudes towards Art History, it doesn't surprise me at all. Classicists can get snooty about people in their own department who "study rocks" ... ie, study archaeology instead of following philology. Also, about people who are Romanists vs. Hellenists. We can be a bunch of elitist brats, really.

It's never fun to be the odd one out, even if it's something that's actually a regularly accepted part of the discipline. So definitely be aware of the atmosphere in any department you go to, especially if you're interests are somewhere off the beaten track of the discipline.