The site of =Troy=, now known as Hissarlik, was, as is well known, first explored by Dr. Schliemann in his laudable endeavours to prove the truth of the early Greek legends of the Trojan War. Although doubtless there are visible links between the Homeric poems and the discoveries at Hissarlik, and although it is not necessary to deny all credence to the historical truth of the “Bible of the Greeks,” yet it is now generally recognised that Dr. Schliemann’s pardonable enthusiasm sometimes led him to hasty conclusions. For instance, Dr. Dörpfeld in his more recent investigations proved that if any remains are to be connected with the tale of Troy, it is those of the sixth, not of the second or burnt city.[869] Nine layers in all have been traced, of which the five lowest may be termed prehistoric, the third, fourth, and fifth being mere villages on the ruins of the first two. In the lowest and earliest of all, which may be roughly dated 3000–2500 B.C., flint implements were found, together with rude black pottery: hand-made utensils baked in the open, with rings for suspension in place of handles. The second city belongs to the period 2500–2000 B.C., and it is this which has yielded pottery analogous to the earliest examples from Cyprus (p. 238). It is of the same rough hand-polished black ware, with decoration either of a plastic character or engraved in the clay while wet and filled in with white paint. Apart from this there are no traces of painted decoration, or of any slip; but the colour of the surface varies with the firing. The patterns consist of zigzags, circles, and other rudimentary geometrical ornaments. A few wheel-made specimens were found, but the majority are made by hand. What artistic sense was evinced by these primitive potters was shown exclusively in the forms, and in the tendency which is especially conspicuous in primitive times, though it lingered on through the history of Greek art, and again broke out in the period of the decadence, to combine the ceramic and the plastic idea, and to give to the vase the rude resemblance of the human form.[870] That this was no far-fetched idea is shown by the universal nomenclature which permits us to speak of the mouth, neck, shoulder, body, and foot of a vase—a principle which has been extended by general consent to countless inanimate objects. Thus we find the Hissarlik potter incising eyes on the upper part of the vase, or affixing lumps of clay to give a rude suggestion of ears, nose or breasts, or bands to denote necklaces. The handles often seem intended for rudimentary arms, and we are tempted to see in the hat-shaped covers of the vases the idea of a head-covering. Schliemann even went so far as to regard them as actual idols, and was led by the superficial resemblance of some to the form of an owl into identifying them with figures of the “owl-eyed” (γλαυκῶπις) Pallas Athena (cf. Fig. 77). But this interpretation has