ARCHAOLOGICAL AND ETHNOLOGICAL RESEARCHES IN CRETE. 225 
matter as fully as I can, and have come to the conclusion that Mr. 
Hawes has made out a most convincing case in favour of the recognition 
of an ‘ armenoid ’ element in the modern population of Sitia. 
Reference to Mr. Hawes’ remarks in 1910 will show that he urged 
this view of the Sitians against my suggestion that they were colonists 
of ‘illyrian’ affinities introduced by the Venetians. So far as the 
matter is controversial, I readily accept Mr. Hawes’ correction. With 
characteristic modesty, Mr. Hawes* describes his view as a ‘ hint’; 
and he sets this hint against what he calls my suggestion. The latter 
description is correct; but Mr. Hawes can, in my opinion, claim far 
more for his view, for it seems as near a demonstration as we are 
likely to obtain in such matters. 
In 1903 I was not altogether unmindful of the possibility of finding 
the ‘ armenoid’ type in Crete. It is perhaps worth mention that in 
my notes I described one of the Minoan crania from Palaikastro 
(No. 2D) as of ‘ armenoid’ aspect. Of this I shall have more to write 
in the sequel. But as regards the observations on the living, I was 
somewhat prejudiced (against the ‘ armenoid’ view) by three con- 
siderations. In the first place, I happened to meet with an Armenian 
in Candia, and was much impressed with the extreme nigrescence of 
hair and eyes, together with the thin aquiline nose. In Sitia I failed 
to recognise these features, at any rate in combination, and in particular 
I find frequent references in my notes to the comparative fairness of 
the moustache among the Sitians. Lastly, the individual most 
“armenoid ’ in appearance among the Sitians measured by me provided 
a cephalic index of 74°1—almost the lowest figure in my list. 
These remarks are not to be taken as expressive of any reserve in 
my adoption of Mr. Hawes’ exposition, but rather as indicating that 
the ‘ armenoid ’ type is perhaps different from the Armenian, or that 
it is not found in its original and unaltered form in Sitia. These are 
matters for future investigation, and as such they will not be discussed 
any further in this place. 
In following Mr. Hawes’ descriptions and inferences as expressed 
in his ‘ Remarks’ and in his subsequent and admirable paper on the 
Dorians,* I was careful to test his conclusions on my own observations 
of Sitians. The result is fully confirmatory of the statement that the 
Sitian head is characteristically short. For purposes of comparison I 
selected thirty men from the province of Sitia (measured by me). One 
provided a cephalic index of 83°3, while all the rest gave indices of 
84 or more. The mean value of this index in the thirty examples is 
86°3. These and other data are most concisely given in the form of 
a table, to which I add Mr. Hawes’ data for Sitians, as well as those 
published in the ‘ Remarks’ (p. 255), to exhibit the likeness between 
the Sitians of Crete and the Takhtadji of Asia Minor, as well as the 
contrast with the Selinots (compared by Mr. Hawes with the 
Albanians). 
The agreement is very close in the case of columns I., II., and III., 
while they are in marked contrast with the data (for the Selinots) in 
8 *Remarks,’ 1910, p. 252. 
4 Annual of the British Scheol at Athens, No, XV1., 1909-10, pp. 258, et seq. 
1912. Q 
