Part of the survey area is cultivated and the rest of it is covered with thick vegetation. Ten survey sites were identified (see Fig. 1), including field walls, farming terraces and agricultural installations, but no diagnostic potsherds were found. Protuberances from the surface, which are visible in several of the survey sites, apparently point to building remains that are buried under alluvium. The survey sites are herewith described:
1. A field wall oriented east–west (length 4 m, width 0.4 m). A protuberance from the ground (diam. c. 5 m) surrounded by scattered building stones was visible c. 3 m north of the wall. A few non-diagnostic potsherds are scattered on the surface.
2. Cupmark/basin (diam. 0.8 m) filled with alluvial soil.
3. Cupmark (diam. 0.2 m) filled with alluvial soil.
4. A protuberance from the ground (diam. c. 8 m; remains of a watchman’s hut?) surrounded by scattered building stones. These building remains are apparently connected to a field wall, 2 m to the east, which is generally aligned east–west and buried beneath alluvial soil.
5. A protuberance from the ground (diam. c. 10 m), surrounded by scattered building stones that are dressed in a manner characteristic of the Ottoman period.
6. Two large cupmarks, c. 2.5 m apart, that were found filled with alluvial soil. The eastern cupmark is elliptical (0.35×0.60 m) and the western one is circular (diam. 0.4 m).
7. A large cupmark (diam. 0.5 m) that was found filled with alluvial soil. The rim on its southern side is c. 0.45 m higher than the rim on its northern side.
8. Remains of a rectangular installation (winepress? 0.75×1.30 m), whose eastern part is missing. It was hewn on top of a boulder that had apparently been detached from its location at the top of the spur.
9. Quarrying marks on the bedrock, which are almost completely covered with alluvial soil; a protuberance from the ground (diam. 2 m).
10. A large cupmark (diam. 0.7 m); about 1 m to its north is an elliptical rock-cutting covered with thick vegetation, at the top of the slope.
The survey sites attest to agricultural activity that probably occurred in the recent past (Ottoman period?). This activity should be linked to the Arab village of Deir Ayyub that was abandoned in 1948. Some of the agricultural installations are probably earlier, but it is impossible to verify this assumption in the absence of datable ceramic finds.