At the beginning this building was a puzzle to us, the part revealed in season 1909 being only a long piece of the outside wall which gave but few data, and thus became a source of much speculation as to its meaning. This wall ran east and west, having a base measurement of 2·60 metres broad with its outer faces sloping--their ‘batter’ being 4 cms. in every rise of 25 cms. Its construction consists of two outer skins of small well-made limestone blocks built upon sandstone foundation slabs, with, in the middle, a core of stone and mortar rubble mixed with sand. In it was a doorway, about half-way along the length cleared, which opened out to the north--its door-jambs being on that side. The eastern extremity of the excavation then made, showed that in that direction it descended. Under the doorway a search was made for a deposit but with no result, though at the west end, the part of the wall first discovered, there was a pocket of sand which seemed to have belonged to something of that nature. The extensive exploration of this site in 1910 clearly determined that it was an unfinished portion of a building of Terrace-Temple form; and that the wall, which had given rise to many theories, was only its northern boundary wall (Pl. XXXI. 1 and 2). The intended scheme of this unfinished building seems to have been an Upper and a Lower Court, divided by a single Colonnaded Terrace (see plan and section, Pl. XXX), similar somewhat to Hatshepsût’s Mortuary Chapel at Dêr el Bahari. It is, however, all in the very early stages of construction, the wall itself being the only part that shows any signs of completion. Very possibly, in earlier times, a great deal more of the structure existed, for it had been used as a quarry for limestone at some late period. In detail, the ‘battered’ boundary wall, averaging nearly 6 metres in height, was capped by a coping-stone curved on the top. The base of its outer face declines from the level of the Upper Court down to the level of the Lower Court, a matter of nearly 4·50 metres difference in level; while, on the inner side, the base is horizontal and takes the levels of the two courts. When looking at the plan (Pl. XXX) it will be noticed that the wall gradually swells on the outer face between the two sections, viz. the Upper and Lower Courts, and suddenly returns to its normal thickness. This can be explained by the fact that a ‘battered’ surface must necessarily spread as it descends to a lower level. It was at this point (the level of the Lower Court) blended back to the normal base measurement of the wall by a small angle of masonry (see Pl. XXXI. 1). [Illustration: FIG. 10. HIERATIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM ‘VALLEY’-TEMPLE.]