Area B (Figs. 5, 6). A fenced-off area (40 × 50 m) divided by field walls was exposed. It consisted of three agricultural terraces (B1–B3) that descended the hill as part of a larger agricultural complex (Fig. 7). Two perpendicular[they appear to be parallel] walls (W30, W43) divided the enclosure into five plots (I–V)—three in the northeast and two in the southwest. A staircase of roughly hewn stones (L17; Fig. 8) was constructed between Plots I and II, which was part of an agricultural terrace wall (W16) that abutted W30 from the northeast. Wall 30, which continued northward, canceled a natural cave (L29; Fig. 9) whose opening had been widened. In the absence of any finds, the cave’s use, purpose and date are unclear, but the wall that negates the cave indicates that it predated the agricultural system. The northeastern end of W16, which separated Plots I and II, became the eastern wall of a two-story field tower that was apparently built at the same time as the wall. The field tower was oval (diam. 3–4 m; height 1.5–4.0 m) and its walls were constructed of two rows of medium-sized to large stones set on bedrock, in harmony with the topography. The ground floor of the tower contained an entrance (L12; 0.60 × 0.95 m; Fig. 10). The tower’s lower story was partly hewn and included a main cavity and a hewn niche (FI, FII; Fig. 6: Section 2-2), and the bedrock beneath it showed signs of weathering. The lower part of the main cavity (FII; 2.1 × 2.4 m, height c. 2.8 m; Fig. 11) was hewn, while its upper part was built of various sizes of fieldstones, culminating in a vaulted ceiling. A niche (FI; 1.1 × 1.4 m, height c. 2 m) was discovered in the southern part of the main cavity. The southern and eastern walls of the field tower were built of different-sized stones, incorporated in the bedrock in the western part of the niche and forming a vault in its ceiling. Stairs built of four roughly hewn stone slabs integrated in the tower’s eastern wall and protruding from it ascended to the second story (Fig. 12). The upper story was only partly preserved; hence, it is unclear where it was entered. A doorway (0.45 × 0.55 m) discovered in its western side was built of large roughly hewn stones and led to a square room (L20; 1.8 × 1.8 m) of unknown use.
Area C (Figs. 13, 14). A winepress with a hewn treading floor (L48) and a collecting vat (L49) was exposed. The treading floor was square, with shallow sides, and its floor was slightly damaged. A rock-hewn niche (L54), probably used to secure a wooden beam, was discovered on a bedrock cliff above the northern wall of the treading floor. A round cupmark (L52; diam. 0.1 m, depth 0.15 m) was in the western wall. The treading floor drained eastward through a channel (L55) to the collecting vat that had two small hewn depressions that served as steps in its southern wall. A circular settling pit (L53) was hewn in the bottom of the vat, next to its southern and western walls.
A krater (Fig. 15:1) and a striped body fragment (Fig. 15:2) dating to the Ottoman period and the time of the British Mandate were found in the doorway leading to the field tower. On the upper agricultural terrace were several metal artifacts, for example an enamel bowl (Fig. 16:1), a nail (Fig. 16:2), a riding spur (Fig. 16:3), a knife (Fig. 16:4) and what were probably two ornamental items (Fig. 16:5, 6). In addition, a long, pointed rod was discovered that was probably a pry-bar (Fig. 17).
The excavation area was in the bottom of a small valley. In the extensive area surrounding it were the remains of the agricultural hinterland of the nearby village of ‘En Kerem, consisting mainly of field walls that were probably used to delineate cultivation plots and farming terraces. A fairly well-preserved two-story field tower was incorporated in one of the field walls. The location of the excavation areas on the slope did not allow for the excavation of clean loci, and it was therefore impossible to determine with certainty when the field tower and the walls were used. Since the small finds and architecture date to the Ottoman and British Mandate periods, it is reasonable to assume that they were also used at that time. A rock-hewn winepress devoid of pottery sherds was found to the south of the complex; it lacked unique features that could assist in dating it.