Area A yielded remains of a rectangular structure (4.5 × 6.0 m; Figs. 2, 3). The excavation outside the structure revealed that it is situated on a bedrock outcrop (Fig. 4). Its walls (W100–W103), preserved up to two or three courses, were built of single rows of unworked boulders with small stones filling the voids between them (Fig. 4). The western wall (W101) was built on a foundation of small stones, set to level the uneven bedrock; Walls 102 and 103 lay on hewn bedrock foundations. The entrance to the structure did not survive, but a gap at about the mid-section of W103 suggests that a doorway existed there. In the northern part of the structure, several large collapsed boulders (L106; Fig. 5) covered the smoothed bedrock floor of the structure (L107).
The pottery assemblage from the structure includes numerous diagnostic sherds dated to the Iron Age IIB–C (925–586 BCE). Although the assemblage does not include any vessel forms that first appeared in the seventh century BCE or later, an Iron Age IIC date should not be completely ruled out. The assemblage includes bowls (Fig. 6:1, 2), kraters (Fig. 6:3–5), storage jars (Fig. 6:6, 7) and a single lamp with a pinched nozzle and a thickened base (Fig. 6:8). Two hammerstones (Fig 6:9, 10) were discovered on the floor inside the structure. A small number of sherds from the Early Roman period, including an almost complete small juglet (Fig 6:11), were found in the uppermost layer of the soil accumulation within the structure. 
Area B yielded a hewn winepress (Figs. 7, 8) comprising a rectangular treading floor (L200; 3.5 × 4.0 m), a small elliptical settling vat (L202; 0.6 × 1.0 m, depth 0.5 m) and a larger oval collecting vat (L201; 1.0 × 1.5 m, depth 1.5 m); these three components were set in steps, positioned along a northeast–southwest axis. The western part of the treading floor was not well preserved. A shallow rectangular niche hewn at the mid-section of the back, northeastern, wall of the treading floor served to anchor a wooden beam (Fig. 9). A channel running along a U-shaped route—possibly square originally, as its western part did not survive—was cut in the surface of the treading floor in front of the recess, c. 0.5 m to its southwest (Fig. 9, marked in red). The channel probably served to drain the liquids produced in the secondary pressing of the grapes’ skins with a wooden beam. The settling and collecting vats were hewn in two steps to the southwest of the treading floor. The scant remains of a hewn partition separating the two vats can still be discerned (Fig. 10). Small, round depressions were hewn in the floors of both vats. No sealed pottery deposits were found.
A similar winepress, which could not be dated, was uncovered c. 300 m to the east (Zilberbod 2013: Figs. 6, 7). A winepress with similar technological features, ascribed to the Iron Age, was discovered on Wadi el-Joz Street in Jerusalem (Lavi 2011: Figs. 2, 3): it had a hewn niche for anchoring a wooden beam in its back wall and channels that were cut in the treading floor.
The structure in Area A was dated to the Iron Age IIB–C based on pottery retrieved from within it. Furthermore, the structure resembles in its plan and construction contemporaneous buildings discovered in nearby Iron Age II sites (Davidovich et al. 2006; Be’eri 2012). The excavation of the winepress in Area B, on the other hand, did not produce any finds from datable contexts. It is nevertheless ascribed to the Iron Agebased on stylistic and technological features which were common in winepresses of this period in the region, namely the hewn back recess and channel. Thus, the remains unearthed in the excavation fit well within the wider context of the northern Jerusalem rural hinterland during the Iron Age.