Manila, Oct. 26.
Dr. Carl E. Guthe, archeologist from the University of Michigan, who has reported in some detail to the University the results of a year's investigation of archeological remains in the Philippines, has his collection in Cebu, where he is classifying it—the first collection from the first systematic effort of the kind ever carried on here.
While Philippine' scholars say that the comparison between what has or may be found here with the relic from the treasures of the Pharaohs found in Tutankhamen's mountain tomb is far-fetched and quite erroneous, they also contend that Dr. Guthe's explorations are bound to throw much valuable light upon insular' history and clear up points about which there hag been much doubt, It was through the efforts of Dean C. Worcester that Michigan sent Dr. Guthe here, it was lezned. Dr. Worcester on a visit to the United States a few years ago had with him enough archeological specimens to arouse scholarly curiosity in the Pennsylvania and Field museums. But at that time these institutions had no funds for Philippine explorations, so Dr. Worcester took the matter up with his a/me mater, the University of Michigan, where an anonymous donor, probably an alumnus, gave $30,000 for three years' work to be conducted by Dr, Guthe, the specimens to become the property of the University museum.
ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION, Dr. Guthe, in a little less than a year, hag explored caves and ancient burial places on the islands of Bohol, Samar and Cebu. His work has been rewarded by recovery of specimens of Chinese arts and handicrafts of Tang, Sung and Ming dynasties. But the conclusion that the specimens prove Chinese occupation of the Philippines during the period of these three dynasties is neither warranted from' Dr. Guthe's finding nor in accordance with other known facts, it is asserted here.
What the specimens do prove, or, rather, abundantly corroborate, is that Chinese traders visited the islands for a long period during these three dynasties, and that the Malayans were influenced by Chinese in their social customs; and it is probably that the Chinese religion, in corrupted form, true to the repetition of history in such instances—was adopted or blended with the native faith.
The Tang dynasty goes it is explained, to the 7th Christian century; and the Ming dynasty, the latest of the three, continued until the middle of the 17th century. The Guthg specimens there-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.