Thirty-nine areas (c. 300 × 300 m) were opened, exposing six burial caves, twenty quarries, four winepresses and other installations (Fig. 2). The finds date to five main periods: the Early Bronze Age I–II, the Middle Bronze Age II and the Roman and Byzantine periods. Pottery sherds from the Hellenistic and Umayyad periods were collected on the surface. Remains of two buildings from the Ottoman/British Mandate periods, apparently, part of the Arab village of al-Mujaydil, were documented.
 
Burial Caves. Four hewn caves were exposed in the northern part of the excavation area, in the limestone outcrops at the top of the southern slope of the spur.
1. A large burial cave with a circular chamber (diam. c. 3 m, depth c. 2 m; Figs. 3, 4) dated to the Early Bronze Age was revealed. The cave was entered from the south by way of a hewn corridor (L152), at the end of which were two rock-cut steps that descended to the cave floor. A row of stones that blocked the passage (W144) at the end of the corridor, above the steps, was probably the bottom course of a wall that sealed the cave opening. A layer of soil (L121, L142, L146) on the cave floor contained numerous fragments of vessels, mostly red-slipped bowls (Fig. 5:3–6) and jugs (Fig. 5:7, 8), mainly dating to the EB IB. Two earlier carinated bowls (Fig. 5:1, 2) dating to EB IA were also found. These vessels do not necessarily indicate that the cave was used for interment at that time, and it is very likely that they were brought as offerings in a later period. The clear majority of the vessels were broken and scattered throughout ​the cave, evidence of a disturbance and possible plundering in ancient times. On the floor of the cave, in the center of the chamber, was a stone heap (L151), perhaps the remains of a built tomb that had been destroyed in antiquity. Juglets (Fig. 5:9, 10) and a goblet (Fig. 5:11) dating to EB II were discovered close to the stones and between them, and five beads—probably part of a necklace—and a small figurine of a horned animal (Fig. 5:12) were also found there. Many poorly preserved human bones were found in the fill on the floor of the cave, and it was impossible to reconstruct the original burial position or determine the gender of the deceased. Based on professional estimates, the remains represent at least nineteen individuals: four infants, seven children and eight adults. Other fragments of pottery vessels, including a Gaza jar (not drawn) dating to the Ottoman period (late nineteenth–early twentieth centuries CE), found in later layers (L105, W120, L117), indicate the cave was used during this period briefly, until its ceiling collapsed, probably during the twentieth century CE. The cave, situated beneath a dwelling from the Ottoman period and the time of the British Mandate, was presumably used by the inhabitants of the building for storage, to shelter animals or as a hiding complex. The cave was accessible during this phase by way of the entrance shaft to Cave 2 (below). Wall 120 probably served as a step between the level of the bedrock and the cave floor.
2. Cave 2, located north of Cave 1, was shallower and smaller and its ceiling was partially collapsed. The cave was entered through a deep vertical shaft (L176; Figs. 3, 4) that led to a small round chamber. The dating of the cave is uncertain since it was found filled completely with modern debris (Fig. 4); however, clearly, Cave 2 predated Cave 1, which severed it and its entrance shaft, and destroyed it.
Two coins were found in the later accumulations filling these caves: a bronze coin of the Byzantine emperor Constance I dating to 341–346 CE in Cave 1 (IAA 158247; L105); and a coin of Emperor Aurelian dating to 270–275 CE in Cave 2 (IAA 158248; L175). Neither coin was discovered in an archeological context.
3, 4. Two caves were hewn in a bedrock outcrop that faced south, c. 100 m west of Cave 2 (Figs. 6–8). As in Cave 2, these caves were very poorly preserved, their ceilings had collapsed and they were filled with soil (L134, L156). Both caves were small and circular (diam. c. 3 m). Cave 3 was no more than 1 m high and Cave 4, slightly higher. The ceiling of the latter cave rose at its sides to a height of c. 1.2 m and it was certainly even higher in the center.
No undisturbed strata or in situ finds were found on the floor in either cave; therefore, it is difficult to date them with certainty. Cave 3 was discovered filled completely with soil accumulations, including plastic bags and other modern items. In Cave 4, the modern disturbance was limited to the southern side only. Several Late Roman pottery sherds were discovered in the fill on the cave’s northern side (L156), including Kfar Hananya Types 4C and 5B cooking pots (Figs. 9:2, 3; 9:4 respectively) dating to the fourth–fifth centuries CE (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:128–130, 139–141, Pls. 4c and 5b). In addition, a red-slipped Attic bowl with an incurved rim dating to the mid-fourth century BCE (Fig. 9:1) was found in the accumulation in the cave’s entrance. These late finds are apparently ex situ and are of no assistance in dating the time when the caves were hewn. All the fragments were found in secondary deposition in the accumulations in the caves, and therefore, at most, provide a possible later dating for when the caves were filled with soil. Although there is no direct evidence, the caves are similar in nature, size and shape to Cave 2, and thus may also be attributed to the Early Bronze Age cemetery.
 
The caves were probably part of a large MB I–II cemetery that extended beyond the excavation area. The closest settlement from these periods known today was exposed near Tel Shadud, c. 1 km south of the site at the foot of the spur (Covello-Paran and Matskevich 2016). The caves were probably part of this settlement’s cemetery.
 
Shaft Tombs. Two adjacent shaft tombs (5, 6) were exposed in bedrock outcrops just west of Cave 1.
5. A shaft at the western endof a nari terrace, hewn in an ancient quarry (Quarry 31; Fig. 2) was rectangular (L138; depth c. 1.8 m; Figs. 10, 11) with a square opening blocked by a large roughly hewn square-shaped stone (0.55 × 0.75 m) at the bottom of its southern wall. The shaft was completely blocked by alluvium devoid of archaeological finds, except for a few small non-diagnostic pottery sherds. The opening led to a long, narrow hewn niche (L238; length 2 m, height 0.9 m). Although the opening was sealed, the niche was filled with alluvium mixed with a large amount of crushed chalk. No archaeological finds were discovered in the soil apart from two small abraded body fragments that in color resemble that of Kfar Hananya vessels from the Roman period.
6. A shaft at the eastern end of another bedrock outcrop, next to Shaft 5, was likewise rectangular (L139; depth c. 1.6 m, Figs. 12, 13) and its floor sloped from west to east toward a square entrance blocked by a square, roughly hewn stone. The opening led to a long, narrow elliptical niche (L177; length 1.9 m, height 0.9 m). Another arched opening, not blocked by a stone, led to a larger elliptical chamber (L158; diam. c. 2.4 m, height 1.4 m), hewn in the shaft’s northern wall. The shaft and the large niche were found filled with alluvium, devoid of sherds, except for two small body fragments of pottery vessels, including a tiny sherd of what appears to be a Kfar Hananya juglet rim (Type 6C; Adan-Bayewitz 1993: Pl. 6c) dating to the early fourth century CE (not drawn). The sealed niche was found filled with alluvium mixed with much chalk paste, but like Shaft 5, the fill was completely devoid of archaeological finds, potsherds or bones. The nature of these two installations is unclear, but their shape—a hewn shaft leading to a niche sealed with a stone—suggests that these are shaft tombs. Since they were found completely devoid of finds, it is possible that the tombs were prepared in advance but were never used.
 
Winepresses. Five winepresses were exposed, four simple and one complex.
7. A simple winepress consisting of a trapezoidal treading floor (L166; 1.8 × 2.2 m; Figs. 14, 15), with an elliptical collecting vat (L167; depth c. 0.35 m) hewn in its northwestern corner, that descended gently along the natural slope of the bedrock to the northwest. Above the treading floor’s eastern wall, on the outside, was a small hewn cupmark (diam. c. 0.2 m).
8. Further north, on the continuation of the bedrock outcrop of Winepress 7, was a simple winepress (Figs. 14, 16) different in shape, its collecting vat not part of the treading floor. It had a shallow trapezoidal treading floor (L168; 1.5 × 2.1 m, depth 0.1 m) hewn on a gradient to the northwest in the direction of the natural slope. At the end of the treading floor was a round hewn collecting vat (L169; diam. 0.9 m, depth 0.35 m) and a small round hewn cupmark (diam. c. 0.1 m) was above the treading floor’s southern wall.
9. This simple winepress with a shallow trapezoidal treading floor (L162; 1.3 × 1.6 m, depth c. 0.1 m; Figs. 17, 18) descended sharply toward the northwest along the natural gradient of the bedrock slope. A shallow channel leading to a large rectangular collecting vat (L163; 0.8 × 1.6 m) was haphazardly hewn in the northeastern end. A small, severely damaged and worn depression (diam. c. 0.25 m, depth c. 0.2 m) was at the southern end of the collecting vat; it was unclear whether the depression was natural or a hewn sump.
Dating the three winepresses is difficult. Although the treading floors are shallow and their corners rounded, like the type known as Taʽanakh Winepresses that date to the Middle Bronze Age (Getzov, Covello-Paran and Tepper 2011), they are not elongated and are not connected to the collecting vats via two through-holes.
10, 11. These two winepresses were built one on top of the other (Figs. 19–21). Number 11 was a large complex unit whose treading floor was hewn inside an earlier, simple winepress (No. 10). Winepress 10 was a simple installation hewn at an incline that followed the natural bedrock, with a small and shallow trapezoid treading floor with rounded edges (L225; c. 1.5 × 2.0 m, depth c. 6 cm). Likely, there was a collecting vat at the end of the floor that was damaged when quarrying the collecting vat of Winepress 11 and therefore its exact dimensions are unknown.
Winepress 11 was a large industrial-type installation equipped with work surfaces. The treading floor, which was large and square (L220; 3 × 3 m, depth c. 0.3 m), sloped gently from the southwest to northeast. It was relatively shallow, but due to the natural slope of the bedrock, its eastern wall was higher than the other walls. A hewn gutter leading to a large deep collecting vat (L217; 1.2 × 2.0 m, max. depth c. 1.9 m) coated with thick pinkish plaster was hewn through the treading floor’s northeastern wall. Remains of a broken rock-hewn stone ledge in the northern wall that breached the plaster on the walls and floor of the collecting vat in its northern corner were probably what was left of a step in the vat that was removed for some reason at a later stage. The floor of the collecting vat was split-level; two steps led from west to east, so that its eastern side was about 0.5 m lower than its western side. The two levels were probably meant to create a settling pit where the remains of the wine would collect when emptying the vat. A layer of small fieldstones (L229) covered the bottom of the vat and below it, particularly on the bottom step (L232), were fragments of crushed jars dated to the Late Roman period (Fig. 9:5–9). Another square hewn surface (L218, c. 0.8 × 0.8 m) with a shallow cupmark was north of the collecting vat. A shallow rock-cut channel led from the surface to the collecting vat. Jars may have been placed on this surface when they were being filled with wine, the cupmark serving as a stand for the jar, and the drainage channel returned the surplus wine to the collecting vat.
Neatly hewn and well-executed complex winepresses such as these are generally dated to the Roman, and particularly, to the Byzantine periods. Based on the jars found at the bottom of the collecting vat, Winepress 11 should be dated to the Late Roman period. The jars probably date the final use of the winepress since the collecting vat could not be utilized after it was filled with stones. A crushed Gaza jar found on the square treading floor (Fig. 9:11) indicates that the installation itself remained exposed, even though it was not used, for a long period. Another bedrock surface with a large cupmark (L216; diam. 0.2 m, depth c. 0.18 m) in it was about 2 m southeast of the winepress. The date of the cupmark and its connection to the winepresses is unclear. Similar winepresses were found in excavations and surveys in the vicinity of Migdal Ha-ʽEmeq (Dalali-Amos 2013; Tepper 2014).
The bedrock surface in which the winepress was hewn extended more than 15 m to the north (Fig. 22). The rock in this area was straight and level, and was probably intentionally smoothed (L223). Two small rock-hewn channels and two small cupmarks (diam. c. 5 cm) were exposed on the southwestern part of the bedrock surface, c. 2.5 m northeast of the winepress. The bedrock surface was cut in two, along a natural fracture line (L233), but apparently, this was originally a single surface that extended to the winepress. The purpose of the bedrock surface, as well as that of the channels and cupmarks hewn into it was unclear, but it probably served as a platform where the grape clusters were placed prior to putting them in the winepress.
 
A large rock-cut pit (L224; diam. c. 3.3 m, depth c. 4.2 m) west of the bedrock surface, its upper part severed when a dirt road passing through the forest was constructed, was found filled with soil and modern refuse. The purpose and date of the pit were unclear, and it is impossible to tell whether a connection exists between it and the adjacent winepress. The pit was probably not a water cistern because the hewn sides were not plastered, nor were there any channels hewn in the bedrock surface above it. It may well have been a separate installation hewn in a later period, possibly a silo for storing grain or other agricultural produce.
Several building-stone quarries (below, Quarries 20, 21) were exposed west and north of Winepress 11. The connection between the winepress and the quarries is unclear, but it seems that the winepress postdates them. In the northern corner of the treading floor, a somewhat indistinct quarrying line was discerned that extended northwest beyond the winepress (Fig. 19). This seems to be the remains of an ancient rock-cutting that was done when the winepress was being hewn.
 
Pits, Cupmarks and Other Installations. In addition to the numerous winepresses, hewn installations, particularly pits and cupmarks, were found in the bedrock outcrops scattered in the area.
12. A row of three connected rock-hewn round pits (Figs. 23–25) was exposed north of Caves 1 and 2. Quarried haphazardly and not plastered, they were apparently part of an installation. The opening of a hewn channel that drained liquid into the southern pit (L126; the largest of the three, diam. c. 1.6 m, depth c. 1.75 m) was visible in the southern wall of the pit, beneath a wall (W136) from the Ottoman period (see Fig. 53). A carelessly hewn opening in its northern wall linked it to a second, smaller pit (L153; diam. c. 1.5 m, depth c. 1.3 m) and another opening, also uneven and crudely hewn, connected it to the third, smallest pit (L154; diam. 1.7 m, depth c. 0.9 m); its crudely made connections were barely preserved (Fig. 23: Section 1–1). The purpose of the installation was unclear, and no parallels to it were found. The connecting pits and the channel leading to them from the south suggest that they were used for liquids. However, as the pits were not plastered, we cannot assume that they were meant to store liquids for an extended period. The pits were completely devoid of finds. Pit 154 severed two of the many building-stones quarries located in the area (Quarry 34; Fig. 2); hence, the installation postdates them.
13. Next to Caves 3 and 4 was another system of pits, each of them separately hewn and not connected to each other (Figs. 6, 26). Five pits were in the bedrock surface north of Cave 3: one circular pit (L132; diam. c. 1.5 m, depth c. 1.4 m) was relatively well-executed; a second trapezoidal pit (L133; 1.4 × 2.2 m, depth 1.2 m) was c. 1 m to the east; three additional pits (diam. 0.6–0.8 m) were west and south of Pit 132. The western pit (L183) was partially excavated; only the upper rock-hewn parts of the others were exposed. Although the function of these pits is not known, they may have been used as granaries. They were found filled with alluvium and without archaeological finds that could be of assistance in dating them, dug into the bedrock between the numerous scattered quarries (Quarry 35; Fig. 2). In one spot, the southern end of one of the pits (not excavated) seems to have cut the edges of the rock-cutting, thereby suggesting that the pits postdate the quarries.
14. Two additional installations were found at the western end of the bedrock outcrops (Figs. 6, 27): one large (L181; diam. c. 1.6 m, excavated depth 0.2 m), located at the very end of the excavation, and the other, c. 2 m to its east—a round hewn installation (L131; diam. c. 0.9 m, depth c. 0.6 m) with a small circular cupmark (diam. c. 0.2 m) on its south. Unlike the other carelessly hewn pits, this one was neatly quarried and well-executed, and with the cupmark alongside it, must have been an installation, possibly a simple oil press—several have been found in the area (Tepper 2014: Site 56). A building-stone quarry (L180; Quarry 35, below), just west of Installation 131, did not damage it.
15, 16. Additional cupmarks/installations were found. Three deep cupmarks, hewn on two separate outcrops, were exposed c. 10 m south of Winepress 11. The eastern one (L249; diam. c. 0.35 m, depth c. 0.5 m) was neatly hewn, completely round and deep, and was probably used as a simple oil press (Fig. 22). The other two cupmarks, which were situated on another outcrop c. 10 m to the west (L247, L248), were similar in size to Cupmark 12, but irregular in shape, and the quarrying was not nearly as well-executed. A small, coarsely hewn surface that was possibly a bodeda (Fig. 28) may have been discerned near Cupmark 248. The cupmark and surface were filled with clayey soil and a few stones, without pottery sherds.
 
Quarries. Twenty building-stone quarries were discovered in the many limestone outcrops at the site (Table 1). Some of the quarries were large and stretched across a long bedrock outcrop, and some were very small and exploited a single boulder or a single section of a bedrock outcrop. Several quarrying steps were identified in most of the locations, and traces of rock-cuttings, severance channels and sometimes even undetached stones, making it possible to reconstruct the dimensions of the stones that were produced. The quarries were apparently used by the residents of the ancient settlements at Migdal Ha-ʽEmeq, but their dates are unclear. The location of the quarries next to the burial caves clearly shows that the rock-cuttings postdate the Bronze Age burial caves; however, they antedate the nearby pit installations, as well as the hewn shaft tombs. Apart from pottery sherds from the Early Bronze Age and the Ottoman period, the only other pottery sherds found dated to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and the quarries should probably also be ascribed to these periods.
 
Table 1. Data from the quarries discovered in the excavation
Survey Point
Locus No.
Quarry Dimensions (m)
No. of Steps
Height of Step (m)
Stone Dimensions (m)
Comments
Fig. Nos.
17
244
4.5 × 10.5
3
0.25–0.30
0.9 × 0.9
0.7 × 0.7
0.4 × 0.6
Various-sized stones; severance channels c. 0.1 m deep
29, 30
18
202
205
5 × 10
3–4
0.3
0.9 × 0.9
0.7 × 0.7
0.4 × 0.6
Various-sized stones
31
19
211
240
5 × 8
2–3
0.25–0.30
0.6 × 0.9
Stones still attached to bedrock (L240); quarry predates W204
32, 33 (quarry appears in photographs after a section of the wall that negated it was removed
20
219
2.2 × 2.5
1
0.6
Unclear
Next to Winepress 11
19
21
223
3 × 5
2
0.3
0.5 × 0.6
Severed the surface adjacent to Winepress 11
22, 34
22
236
2.0 × 2.5
1
0.3
0.4 × 0.6
Three stones
35
23
235
3.0 × 3.7
2
0.2
0.6 × 0.6
 
31, 36
24
245
1.4 × 2.5
1
0.3
0.6 × 0.6
Twelve stones
37
25
237
3 × 5
2
0.25–0.30
0.5 × 0.6
Severance channels 0.1 m deep
38, 39
26
239
3.5 × 5.0
2
0.3
0.4 × 0.6
0.6 × 0.8
 
40
27
251
3 × 4
2
0.3
0.4 × 0.6
Several severance channels identified
41
28
408
1.5 × 2.0
1
0.3
0.6 × 1.1
(0.6 × 0.6)
Small quarry at the end of a large unworked outcrop; unclear whether there are two large or four small stones
42
29
403
405
 
5 × 6
2
0.25–0.30
0.4 × 0.7
 
43, 44
30
404
406
1.5 × 3.0
1.0 × 3.5
 
2
0.3
0.4 × 0.6
Two separated boulders
45
31
128
0.6 × 1.2
1
Unclear
0.6 × 0.8
Traces of quarrying cut by Shaft 5
10, 11
32
140
2 × 3
1
0.25
0.4 × 0.6
 
46
33
184
185
0.5 × 0.9–1 × 1
2–3
0.25–0.30
1 × 1
Four separate rock-cuttings on bedrock surface around Cave 1
3
34
107
179
Bedrock surface measuring 5 × 10
2–3
0.25–0.30
0.4 × 0.6
Surface north of Caves 1 and 2; at least five separate stones and a large rock-cutting of four adjacent stones; four separate traces of quarrying
23–25, 47
35
180
182
10 × 25
2–3
0.3
0.45 × 0.70
Bedrock surface next to Caves 3 and 4; chisel marks of rock-cuttings for separate stones or several adjacent stones
6, 26, 27, 48
36
186
0.5 × 1.5
1
0.3
0.45 × 0.70
Two stones
49, 51
 
Buildings from the Late Ottoman and the British Mandate Periods. Remains of two residential structures were exposed on the northern part of the hilltop.
37. A square one-room building (Figs. 49–51) with a large enclosed courtyard to the south was exposed. The courtyard was accessed by a wide opening fixed in the southwestern wall (W113), southeast of which was a small built cell (W174). The floor of the courtyard was paved with crushed chalk (L125) and in its northeastern corner was a small built tabun (L111). Two coins were found in the building: a silver para of Mahmud II, dating to 1839 CE, discovered at the bottom of the tabun, and a one mil coin dating to 1942 from the British Mandate period, found on the floor of the courtyard beneath the collapse of the stones walls. Another larger tabun with thick walls constructed of small fieldstones was discovered east of the building (L173; min. depth 0.7 m). It was filled with pottery sherds dating to the nineteenth century CE, including numerous fragments of Gaza jars (Fig. 9:13), a yellow-glazed Ҫanakkale Ware bowl decorated with black stripes from western Asia Minor (Fig. 9:10; E. Stern, pers. comm.) and a fragment of a later type of Ottoman tobacco pipe (not drawn; A. Shapiro, pers. comm.).
A square structure consisting of one large room (L124; 4.5 × 4.5 m) with a thick concrete floor was found on the northern side of the courtyard. Its walls were constructed of medium-sized fieldstones founded on bedrock. The room was entered by way of an opening in the southwestern wall (W123) in which a threshold of dressed limestone survived (Fig. 49, marked with an arrow). Turquoise-blue remains were found at the edge of the room, next to the northwestern and northeastern walls (W114 and W115 respectively), which probably attest to a painted floor. The room was relatively empty of finds, except for a brik-type jug (Fig. 9:12) and two types of rifle cartridges—7.92 mm Mauser rifle casings from 1924 and 7.77 mm British Enfield rifle cartridges from 1942. Both weapons were used during the British Mandate period and the War of Independence. A brass button bearing the decoration of an eagle surmounted by a crown was discovered on the floor of the room. The inscription on the back of the button indicates that it was manufactured in Birmingham. These buttons adorned jackets of the Royal Air Force during and shortly after the Second World War (Fig. 52). The building, completely excavated, seems to have served as a dwelling used until the middle of the twentieth century CE.
38. Another structure, slightly to the north (Figs. 23, 53), was partially excavated; one of its walls (W136) and a small section of a concrete floor (L187) abutting it from the east were exposed. Another one mil coin from the time of the British Mandate (1942) was discovered on the floor in the small part of the building that was excavated. Despite only having been partially exposed, this was clearly another building dating to the Ottoman and the British Mandate periods.
Both structures apparently belonged to the Arab village of al-Mujaydil. Judging by the paucity of artifacts, the buildings were apparently abandoned in an orderly manner prior to being demolished.
39. Also attributed to this time span was a long field wall (W204; length c. 20 m, width c. 0.8–0.9 m; Figs. 31, 32, 54) exposed c. 100 m southwest of Building 37. The wall, running east–west along the natural slope, was built of two rows of medium-sized and large fieldstones with small fieldstones in between them and survived to a height of one course (c. 0.3–0.6 m). It was constructed at the end of a natural bedrock terrace, and in several places, it was apparent that its eastern face was founded directly on the bedrock and the western face was built on a thin layer of soil. The wall was incorporated into the bedrock, conforming to the depressions in it and negated an ancient building-stone quarry (Quarry 19; Fig. 2). Its date is uncertain, but this was evidently a field wall that delimited cultivation plots from the Ottoman period, based on a small body fragment of an ornate bowl that probably dates to the end of the nineteenth century, found in the fill abutting the wall (L208; E. Stern, pers. comm.). A piece of jewelry in the form of a perforated gold coin ascribed to Mahmud II (1808–1839 CE; L209; Fig. 31) was also discovered on the surface near the wall.
 
 
Human activity continued in the area for a long time; the archaeological finds indicate four periods. During the Early Bronze Age, the area served as a cemetery for a nearby settlement, possibly the one at ʽEn Shadud, at the foot of the spur. The Roman and Byzantine periods are represented mainly by stone quarries, but a large winepress was also revealed, and it seems that the area was primarily used for agricultural and industrial purposes. Some of the installations that were exposed—the simple winepresses and shaft tombs—could not be dated. Based on their shape, and the fact that they postdate the stone quarries, the shaft tombs should probably also be attributed to the Roman and Byzantine periods. Given that only installations and burial caves were found in the area, and not architectural remains, this was an open area during these periods, outside inhabited settlements, and was part of the farming hinterland that surrounded a residential area. Only later, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries CE, was the area used for residential purposes. The remains of the two buildings probably belonged to people who lived on the outskirts of the village of al-Mujaydil.