There is a still more important fact revealed by this recent excavation, the full significance of which does not seem to have been noted. This is the discovery, on the left hand, of a lower frontage wall or foundation (X, Y), upon which the upper one partly rests. Now between these upper and lower walls there is, according to the plan, a clear angle of deviation amounting to five degrees. The masonry of the lower wall corresponds with the roughly ‘polygonal’ system of walling illustrated on Beuyuk Kaleh at Boghaz-Keui and elsewhere, while that of the upper consists entirely of large square blocks of granite, nearly uniform in height and mostly five or six feet in length, bound together by means of ‘joggles,’ and backed by a revetment of rough stones, making the whole about two metres thick. So far as one can judge from the published evidence, there is clear suggestion of two different building periods, as we noted in regard to the lower palace at Boghaz-Keui. The earlier one is seen in a stout military wall of polygonal type, the later in the line of sculptured blocks which was built partly over the remains of the other. The monoliths and other sculptures, and the visible remains in general, belong to this later series. Before passing on to a consideration of the sculptures there are two or three architectural points to be noted. In the large cubes for the frontage wall, it is noticeable, particularly in the interior, that their faces are dressed only for a width of five or six inches around the edges, while the rest of the face projects considerably beyond this dressed line. This seems to have been a regular mason’s method of treatment, for the same may be noticed in the smaller stones in the main wall at the approach to the Lion-gate at Boghaz-Keui (Pl. LX.). It is clear that in the latter case no sculptures were contemplated, hence this feature does not necessarily imply that such stones were left by the mason for the sculptor, and remained for some reason unfinished, nor even that the sculptures were wont to be carved after the stones had been placed in position.[591] If the latter was true, it must be proved from other evidence; the contrary conclusion seems to be more probable _prima facie_, and to be borne out to some extent by the general completeness of the group of sculptures upon each stone individually, and by the care with which the bottom-most details of the reliefs are executed, features which would have tended to be neglected had the stone been already in position on the ground. Another point is the reconstruction of the doorway, whether as a cantilever archway, as at Boghaz-Keui, or by a single massive lintel. The great size of the granite block which marks the threshold shows that the latter method was possible to the engineers, and part of the lintel may perhaps be seen in a huge square-cut mass of granite (_i_), with a few hieroglyphs upon it, which lies, unclaimed for