stretched as far west as the Cape Malays of South Africa, which is fair enough, but he does not include the Philippines to the east. This is unfortunate, both because he leaves out any mention of the Hadhrami Arabs who traded and settled in that archipelago, but also because it leads him to declare that few other Arabs came to South East Asia (4). He thereby ignores the influential ‘Syrians’ of the Philippines, who were mainly but not exclusively Christian in their religious adherence, and who met and mingled with their Hadhrami cousins in Mindanao and Sulu. The inspiration to revising the thesis for publication appears to have sprung from reading Eng Seng Ho’s influential work The Graves of Tarim (2006). Ho’s work is liberally cited throughout the book, even though the approach of the author, an anthropologist by training, has been criticized by some historians. Mandal rightly focuses on processes of creolization, rather than on any fully formed self-conscious community of creoles, which certainly never existed. Moreover, the word itself was not employed at the time. That said, the author seems strangely reluctant to consider processes of de-creolization, which many scholars have noted as gathering strength among Hadhrami migrants from the late nineteenth century, as many of them strove to re-Arabize themselves culturally. More particularly, he ignores the growing tendency, stressed especially by Natalie Mobini-Kesheh, for many Arabs to portray themselves as nationals of the small watan (homeland) of Hadhramaut, which today forms part of the state of Yemen. Indeed, Mandal has made surprisingly little effort to integrate numerous other publications on Hadhrami Arabs in the Malay world, which have appeared in print since 1994. There are a few perfunctory citations in his bibliography, but his footnotes reveal almost no recourse to this literature, which has by now become quite extensive. For page after page, his notes comprise only items that appeared before 1994. Even the highly influential tome by Ulrike Freitag, Indian Ocean Migrants and State Formation in Hadhramaut: Reforming the Homeland (2003), is not listed in the bibliography. This is a missed opportunity, as it would have been helpful for Mandal to have reflected on how authors, other than Ho, have tackled this contentious topic since the original thesis was completed. Nevertheless, despite these reservations, Cambridge University Press is to be congratulated for at last making this painstaking scholarly research available to a wider public.

中文翻译：

---

映射文化民族主义：缅甸研究学会的学者，1910-1935

一直向西延伸到南非的马来角，这是公平的，但他不包括东边的菲律宾。这是不幸的，因为他没有提到在该群岛进行贸易和定居的哈德拉米阿拉伯人，而且还因为这导致他宣布很少有其他阿拉伯人来到东南亚（4）。因此，他忽略了菲律宾有影响力的“叙利亚人”，他们主要但不完全是基督教徒，他们在棉兰老岛和苏禄与他们的哈德拉米堂兄弟会面并混在一起。修改论文出版的灵感似乎来自阅读 Eng Seng Ho 有影响的著作《塔里木的坟墓》（2006 年）。尽管作者是一位受过训练的人类学家，但在整本书中大量引用了何的作品，受到了一些历史学家的批评。曼达尔正确地关注了克里奥尔化的过程，而不是任何完全形成的克里奥尔人的自我意识社区，这些社区肯定从未存在过。此外，当时并没有使用这个词本身。话虽如此，作者似乎非常不愿意考虑去克里奥尔化的过程，许多学者指出，从 19 世纪后期开始，哈德拉米移民聚集了力量，因为他们中的许多人努力在文化上重新阿拉伯化。更具体地说，他忽略了日益增长的趋势，尤其是 Natalie Mobini-Kesheh 强调的，许多阿拉伯人将自己描绘成哈德拉毛小国（家园）的国民，哈德拉毛今天是也门的一部分。确实，Mandal 几乎没有努力整合自 1994 年以来出版的许多其他关于马来世界的 Hadhrami 阿拉伯人的出版物。在他的参考书目中有一些敷衍的引用，但他的脚注显示几乎没有求助于这些文献，其中现在变得相当广泛。一页又一页，他的笔记只包含 1994 年之前出现的项目。即使是 Ulrike Freitag 极具影响力的著作《印度洋移民与国家形成》（Hadhramaut：Reforming the Homeland，2003 年）也未列入参考书目。这是一个错失的机会，因为 Mandal 反思自原始论文完成后，除 Ho 之外的其他作者如何处理这个有争议的话题会很有帮助。尽管如此，尽管有这些保留，