Test taken: None
Number of interviews: 3
Time between interviews: They were all in one day: the first one in the morning (around 11), the second one around lunch time (I'd say between 1 and 2 pm) and the last one, which was in LMH, around 5pm.
Length of interviews: The first two were around 45 minutes, the last one around 30 minutes.
Online interview: No

In every interview, there were two tutors. First interview: this was more archaeology based. I got given 20 minutes beforehand to look at a sheet which had a photo of what seemed like a painting, and a map of what seemed like a Roman Domus indicating where that painting was: the arrow was pointing towards a wall, explaining that the image above was a fresco. I had those minutes to just think about the imagery. If anyone wants some reference, I later found out that the fresco probably represents the scene of Achilles on the island of Skyros and the fresco was on the House of the Dioscuri in Pompeii (for reference: https://ermakvagus.com/Europe/Italy/Pompeii/dioscuri.html has a photo of the exact map, and the fresco is the 11th picture, with one person sitting, another standing and what seems like a dog between them). We spent all the time of the interview talking about this fresco, what it could represent, where it could be. They gave me a second image, a photo of someone from the 1800s who sketched the fresco: the image here was way more visible. We slowly got to the myth of Achilles on Skyros, and I imagined the fresco being on a Domus in Pompeii. Following that course, we talked about why someone would have this specific image on their walls, what that represents, what it tells us about the owner of the house etc. Second interview: this was supposed to be more ancient history based, but I found it a mix between the two subjects. I got given 30 minutes beforehand to look at a text (around 2 pages in Word). There was a short introduction, informing me that they were inscriptions found in a sanctuary dedicated to Asklepios (for reference, look up the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, that is where they were from but I literally only found out months later because they never told me). The inscriptions were recording stories of the people who went to the sanctuary and were cured. We spent time talking about what these inscriptions could tell us about who was using the temple, what offerings they were giving. They asked me whether the inscriptions were truthful, and to show that they were not, I took one of them who said a woman had been pregnant for two years and then Asklepios helped her as an example: we then speculated on why these were not true, what was the point of having them unscripted on columns in the sanctuary, and at some point I imagined that maybe there were doctors actually practicing in the sanctuary. At this point, the tutor gave me an image of small knives and other medical instruments that were excavated in the sanctuary. We spent most of the interview talking about the inscriptions, the columns (we also mentioned the problem of erosion with archaeological sources), but then they reserved a few minutes to ask me about my personal statement, in particular about Alexander the Great since I had mentioned my interest in him. They asked me about him, I talked about a book I had read about him written by R. Lane Fox, a tutor in New College, and then they asked me what I would like to study specifically about Alexander if I were to get in. Third interview, at LMH: I was not pooled for this after the first two ones, rather I found out about this one the day before. A girl at LMH told me that the candidates for CAAH there had not been enough, so they picked a few candidates from other colleges to interview as well. For this interview, I had 10 minutes beforehand to read a text. It seemed to be an extract from maybe historiography, talking about a great Roman emperor. At some point, the text mentioned Nerva being his predecessor, so I knew the text was talking about Trajan. During the interview, we talked about the image of the emperor, the relationship between emperors and the Roman people, the relationship between the emperors and their armies, the specific case of Trajan etc. After that, they gave me a few roman coins to look at. They represented a woman, which considering the clothes, hairstyle etc. I supposed was of very high social status: in fact, it turned out to be Livia, wife of emperor Augustus. We talked about the coins, what they represented (they were connected to Augustus' death) and archaeological sources in general. In the hand, they also asked me a question about my personal statement. I had mentioned a number of archaeological sites I had visited, they asked me which one was my favourite, so for around a minute we talked about the theatre of Epidauros.

Honestly, not much. I tried focusing on some of the books and online courses I had mentioned in my personal statement or that my teacher mentioned in her recommendation letter. I also don't think there's really anything you can do to prepare, but if I were to recommend something that I unfortunately didn't have access to, it is to try to find someone who is interested in your subject (a student is fine as well, but if they have more expertise than you like a teacher etc. it's even better) and try to simulate interview situations or even just speak about topics with them: the important thing is that whatever the topic is, it should be something you do not know much about. The key in interviews is to be able to think on your feet.

Practice interview type discussions with someone who knows about your subject, you have to get used to the feeling of not knowing anything about the topic and still being able to think critically about it using your background knowledge and without panicking.