Anwar Arifin joined the WORK-IT -project as a doctoral researcher in economic anthropology after completing a master’s degree at the University of Indonesia. During Anwar’s master’s studies, he developed a strong interest in economic anthropology, inspired by works such as David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Although his previous research focused on healthcare and indigenous communities’ responses to the pandemic, questions of moral and political economy remained central to his analysis. Motivated to pursue these themes further, Anwar applied for the doctoral position in economic anthropology at the University of Helsinki.
How did you end up working in WORK-IT?
I started looking for PhD opportunities abroad after working for a year as a research assistant following my master’s degree. That position involved ethnographic research and further deepened my interest in anthropology. I had already decided during my master’s studies that I wanted to pursue a PhD, so I began searching for suitable opportunities.There were two main directions I wanted to explore, both within anthropology. During my master’s at the University of Indonesia, I became interested in economic anthropology, inspired by works such as David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years and other studies on the history of money. However, I did not have the chance to focus on this field at that time, mainly due to funding constraints.
Instead, I was fortunate to receive funding for a project in North Kalimantan, Malinau, which examined how Indigenous communities and healthcare workers responded to the pandemic. Although this project centered on healthcare, my analysis remained closely connected to questions of political economy. When I began searching for PhD positions, I wanted to find something that would allow me to pursue both my interests in political and economic anthropology. The University of Helsinki’s call for a doctoral researcher in economic anthropology stood out immediately, it was the first position I had seen that specifically aligned with my research interests. After confirming the eligibility requirements with Jason Silverman, the project’s principal investigator, I applied right away.
Finland wasn’t originally in my plans it happened quite by chance. I had been searching broadly for PhD opportunities in European and Nordic universities, as well as in the United States. When I came across the University of Helsinki’s vacancy, it fit perfectly with my background and interests. After learning that I was eligible to apply, I submitted my application, and everything moved forward from there.
What do you expect to learn from your work on the project, both academically and maybe also personally?
I expect to learn a lot, because this project covers topics I haven’t explored directly before, except through reading historical and economic works in my free time. Personally, I’ve never engaged deeply with the Ancient Near East or Near Eastern studies.
In Indonesia, the Ancient Near East is rarely discussed, especially in the social sciences and humanities. Perhaps some strands of theology touch on it, but within anthropology, it’s not a common focus. I’m really looking forward to learning more about it. I’ve always been fascinated by how many global or economic histories, especially in Western historiography, seem to begin in the Ancient Near East. Now, I have the chance to study that more systematically and academically.
Another aspect I expect to learn from this project is about the anthropology of history more broadly. I feel very lucky to be part of a project where, in a sense, my ethnographic subjects are other scholars. Anthropologists have studied academic communities before, of course, but what’s unique here is that I’ll be observing how scholars of the Ancient Near East perceive and write their histories: what they emphasize, what they value, and what they leave out.
It’s an interesting shift from being a researcher studying communities to studying how researchers themselves construct knowledge. Becoming conscious of that process, and of my own position within it, is something I think I’ll learn a great deal from.
How do you see the relationship between historiography and anthropology?
It's great that you ask this question because I've been reading about this a lot recently. Historically, anthropology has tended to study what is often called non-Western or “other” societies, so those outside core imperial powers. Anthropologists often focus on marginalized groups, such as indigenous peoples or urban poor communities.
The anthropology of history examines how non-Western societies conceive of the past. For example, communities in the Fijian Islands or the Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand have different ways of understanding the past compared to the academic assumption that history is fully separate from the present and can be studied objectively. Anthropology emphasizes that there are multiple valid ways of thinking about history, and our own approach is not inherently superior.
My research here aims to scrutinize assumptions anthropologists hold about modern scholars, specifically in Ancient Near Eastern studies. I hope to reveal the logic and processes scholars use when writing history, as well as the circumstances that influence their thinking. These factors might include the history of the discipline itself, current political conditions, or events in the Middle East. For me, these influences are deeply intertwined and cannot be separated from how knowledge is produced.
Could you briefly describe what you're doing here at WORK-IT?
My work is essentially an ethnography of scholars in Ancient Near Eastern Studies. I’m not only observing scholars within this project but also looking at the broader field. Most of these scholars are concerned with what we commonly call history, or what modern people understand as historical research. My aim is to understand how they reconstruct the past of the Ancient Near East, as in how they select, interpret, and present historical narratives. That’s the basic outline of my work on the project.
If you could sit down with a historical figure or scholar from your field, who would it be, and what would you ask?
There are several scholars I would consider. First, David Graeber, whose book Debt inspired me to pursue anthropology. I would like to discuss economic cultures, debt, and money, particularly in the Ancient Near East with him.
Second, I think Marshall Sahlins, Graeber’s teacher, whose work on the anthropology of history deeply influenced my understanding of how other cultures interpret their pasts, including the impact of colonialism. His perspective shapes my approach to historiography and anthropology.
In Ancient Near Eastern studies, I admire Marc Van De Mieroop for his careful and humble approach to historical knowledge. He acknowledges the limits of our understanding and avoids drawing hasty conclusions based on contemporary social theory or assumptions which is a method I personally highly respect.
Finally, Zainab Bahrani, whose work highlights the lack of voice among local scholars, particularly in modern Iraq, and critically examines how Western scholarship dominates interpretations of the Ancient Near East. Her focus on race, gender, and power in historical representation is important, and I am interested in seeing how her frameworks are adopted in the field over time. I really admire her.