The excavation was conducted in a wooded mountainous area, covered with dense vegetation (c. 2 sq km; Fig. 1), on the southern slopes of Mount Carmel. The area is characterized by Rendzina soil and chalk outcrops. Two excavation areas (A, B) were opened, allowing for the documentation of quarries, stone-clearance heaps, a terrace retaining wall and a cave. Past surveys and excavations conducted in the area have yielded settlement remains, agricultural installations and quarries (Masarwa 2012, and see references cited therein).
 
Area A. Twelve quarries for building stones were documented (Table 1; Fig. 2), which is not surprising as quarries are a feature that characterizes the region (Gorzalczany 2007). Several of the quarries comprised more than one quarrying spot. It seems that the quarrying method was to detach the stone from the rock by quarrying severance trenches around the stone, and then detaching the stone by pulling. An iron chisel (Fig. 3) of the type known from the Roman and Byzantine periods (Safrai and Sasson 2001:31–33) was found in Quarry 100.
 
Table 1. Quarrys
No.
Quarry dimensions (m)
Stone size (m)
Notes
Area
Depth
100
C. 25 × 35
C. 3.5
0.5 × 0.9
Seven quarrying spots (4 × 5 m to 12 × 22 m); Fig. 4
101
11.5 × 12.0
C. 1.5
0.9 × 0.6
Four quarrying spots
102
C. 7 × 8
C. 1
0.9 × 0.6
Two quarrying spots; Fig. 5
103
C. 5 × 11
C. 1.5
0.9 × 0.6
Fig. 6
104
4 × 5
C. 1
0.9 × 0.6
 
105
10 × 12
C. 2
0.9 × 0.7
Figs. 7, 8
106
C. 8 × 12
1.5
0.9 × 0.6
Two quarrying spots; Fig. 9
107
10 × 15
C. 0.7
0.8 × 0.5
Fig. 10
108
18 × 31
C. 0.5
0.8 × 0.5
Two quarrying spots; Fig. 11
109
10 × 29
1.3
0.85 × 0.45
Three quarrying spots; Figs. 12, 13
110
24 × 30
3.5
0.8 × 0.5
Four quarrying spots; Fig. 14
111
10 × 16
C. 1
0.8 × 0.5
Fig. 15
 
Area B yielded fifteen clearance heaps containing fieldstones piled up on the bedrock (Table 2), five terrace retaining walls (Table 3) and a rock-hewn cave (diam. 0.75 m, depth 1.2 m), possibly an installation or a cistern whose quarrying was never completed.
 
Table 2. Stone-clearance Heaps
No.
Heap size (m)
Maximum stone length (m)
Notes
Diam.
Height
207
2.4
0.2
0.2
 
209
C. 2
C. 0.3
0.2
 
216
2.8
C. 0.3
0.2
 
218
2
0.5
0.2
 
219
2
0.5
0.4
 
233
C. 2
0.4
0.2
 
249
2.4
0.2
0.2
 
253
1.8
0.3
0.1
Fig. 16
266
2.2
0.4
0.2
 
275
1.8
0.4
0.2
 
276
1.4
0.3
0.1
 
285
1.3
0.3
0.1
 
289
1.5
0.4
0.2
 
290
1.7
0.2
0.1
 
292
1.7
0.5
0.4
 
 
Table 3. Retaining Terrace Walls
No.
Wall dimensions (m)
Maximum stone length (m)
Notes
Length
Width
203
22
 
1
Fig. 17
211
8
0.5
0.4
Built of collects stones; Fig. 18
224
6
 
0.5
Built to a height of one course
228
4, 6
 
0.5
U-shaped outline
268
8.5
C. 0.5
0.6
 
 
The few installations found in the excavation area and the lack of agricultural land, except for the terraces, reflect a marginal area far from a settlement. The area was probably forested in the past as well. The large concentration of quarries indicates extensive quarrying of building blocks, reflecting settlement growth in the vicinity. Based on the chisel found in the excavation, it can be assumed that the quarries date from the Roman and Byzantine periods.