The book has been noted for its difficulty to categorise in traditional genres and its themes regarding postcolonialism, the possibility of synthesising cultures, and Western knowledge systems, particularly with regards to anthropology.

In the second narrative, presented parallel to the first one in the book, Ghosh reconstructs the history of a 12th-century Jewish merchant, Abraham Ben Yiju, and his slaves Ashu and Bomma, using documents from the Cairo Geniza.

[3] Ghosh recounts the series of events that led to a storehouse of documents – dubbed the Cairo Geniza – belonging to Ben Yiju's synagogue being preserved for seven centuries, after which it was brought to the attention of the wider world by a variety of interested scholars.

Ghosh investigates the unnamed slave once more, surmising that his name was Bomma and that he acted as an apprentice to Ben Yiju, eventually taking over the merchant's business.

This serves to put the postcolonial aspects of the story into focus; a decision that Srivastava sees as ironic, given that most of the narrative revolves around Eastern modes of living.

[7] Ghosh's narration often characterizes the inhabitants of Egypt as somewhat innocent, being relatively ignorant of war, violence, and fear, as well as somewhat backwater in their day-to-day household appliances.

[9] Ghosh is frequently disparaged or esteemed based on his country's level of development, and finds himself at several moments arguing vehemently for India's technological superiority - a method of ranking that is fundamentally Western, despite the story taking place geographically outside the West.

[12] Majeed points out that the book is ironic, in that while the medieval is usually an escape from the modern world, Ghosh very clearly links the two eras, making it difficult to forget their connection.

[13] Dixon notes that in the plethora of endnotes to In an Antique Land, not one of them links to a European theorist - a choice that seems to suggest that Ghosh is attempting to shed Western influence.

[14] Dixon argues that Ghosh's counterargument to Orientalism - instead of moving towards the idea of an essential human nature - is that the world is composed of a constant crossing of borders, informed by the differences between every culture.

Scholars argue that the fragmentary nature of the story – jumping back and forth between two distinct and seemingly unrelated narratives – challenges the ‘definitiveness of academic discourses’ and asks to what extent the unique culture of the two Egyptian villages can be generalized to the society as a whole – a traditional ethnographical method of acquiring knowledge.

Srivastava points out this brings to mind works of fiction, which continually reminds the readers that any anthropological text, however academic its writing, is also a reconstruction marked by all the bias and inexactitude that any mode of communication carries.

[25] Ghosh implicitly idealizes modes of knowledge which, like the fragmentary nature of his story, blur boundaries and defy traditional western binaries – a question visited in his earlier novel The Shadow Lines.

The ancient narrative which parallels the modern-day one depicts a world in which Jews and Muslims constantly interact - an interconnectedness that defies cultural, ethnic, and religious boundaries.

[13] Clifford writes that the dual narratives serve to "make space for a counter-history of modernity", using a two-pronged demonstration to show the complexity and reciprocity of cultural interactions.

[31] Smith writes that the novel has been described as “a traveler’s tale, an (auto)ethnography, an alternative history, a polemic against modernization, the personal account of an anthropologist’s research, and, perhaps less obviously, a novel”.

[36] It contrasts with his doctoral thesis - which is written about rural Egyptian village life - in that it eschews present-tense in favor of narrative past-tense; the former of which pushes readers to view its contents as a constant, unchanging truth.

[38] Srivastava points out that the opening lines of the book are written in a novelistic style - marking it in the reader's mind as a novel and encouraging them to read and interpret it according to their own understanding of what is a novel.

A travel book would imply the target audience is someone for whom Egypt would be foreign - alienating potential readers and possibly making its characters overly-exotic, which would seemingly be a colonial move, and a traditional anthropological work would depersonalize what is, to Ghosh, a deeply personal story.

[40] In an interview, Ghosh describes the narrative structure of In an Antique Land as similar to a double helix, wherein events in both the 12th and 20th century are presented linearly, despite neither of truly interacting.

[46] Ghosh's original visit to Egypt in 1980 was to write his doctoral thesis for Oxford University, titled "Kinship in Relation to the Economic and Social Organisation of an Egyptian Village Community".

Lal described the book as establishing Ghosh as “one of the most gifted and nuanced writers anywhere in the world today”, characterizing the work as a noble enterprise to give a name to the anonymous, while also being a commentary on how history may swallow individuals arbitrarily.

[49] Clifford calls it "poignant, tragic, and sometimes hilarious", and that it "makes space for a counter-history of modernity", claiming it is a complex, well-written book with the question of cultural coexistence at its core.