From Classics MA to Ancient History PhD?

[hekebolos]

Salvete,

I'm currently working on a Classics MA, but I've reached a crossroads of sorts. While I still want to study Antiquity, I feel as though I would rather pursue an Ancient History PhD instead of continuing down the Classics path. However, I was wondering whether having a Classics MA-- instead of an Ancient History MA-- would put me at a disadvantage in the application process. Or conversely, will the fact that I've done extensive work with both Latin and Greek help distinguish me amidst other applicants? I've also considered that it's essentially a non-issue, and that admissions committees are more or less ambivalent about Classics vs. Ancient History MAs.

Of course, I would appreciate any feedback.

-hekebolos

[maeisenb]

The difference between ancient history and classics at some places can often be a divsion between those who do language and those who do history but within the same program so thus an application goes to the overall department - although that's a generalization and not always true. I doubt whether your MA would really hurt since it shows you know the languages. The only real impediment would be if you have no historical training at all. The real question is: what do you want to study exactly? And, once you know that, apply to programs that have people who do that.

[hekebolos]

Thanks for the prompt reply, maeisenb. Apologies for not providing extra background information. I have BAs in History and Political Science (summa cum laude), and I subsequently went back to university and earned a Classics BA (also summa); since then, I've been doing grad work predominantly with Latin and Greek. During that time, I've studied with Duke for a semester in Rome in their ICCS program, which heavily emphasized the topographical history of the city and further historical developments on the peninsula. In addition, I was selected for publication online for the Anthropology Journal (not a peer reviewed/academic journal, of course, but publication nonetheless), won a couple of Greek/Latin translation awards, and will be serving as a TA this Spring at my university.

The major problem I have with strictly Classics is the heavy philological emphasis which tends to push historical analysis to the backburner. My research interests are predominantly non-elites in Roman society (slaves, foreigners, freedmen, etc.), and the intermingling of foreign elements (bilingualism/diglossia). I know that there are avenues within Classics by which I can pursue these topics, but I would prefer a more interdiscplinary approach by drawing from art or archaeological sources as opposed strickly to textual.

[maeisenb]

I sent you a message with some thoughts.

[CageFree]

Personally, I don't think it would hurt one bit. History PhD programs in ancient history look for people who are strong in languages, for one thing.