The eastern section (Figs. 1, 2). An excavation square (2 x 8 m) was opened in the eastern section, which was partially damaged by mechanical equipment. The top of the channel (width c. 0.5 m) and the southern wall (W1; width c. 0.5 m, height 0.6–0.8 m) were discovered c. 0.3 m below the road’ surface. The wall was built of different-sized fieldstones that were set on bedrock and bonded with gray cement. The channel’s northern wall (W2; width c. 0.5 m) was located below the northern balk of the excavation and only its inner face was exposed. At a depth of c. 0.7 m inside the channel (L102) was a ceramic pipe (diam. 0.22 m), which was covered with a layer of very small stones bonded with gray cement (thickness 0.2–0.3 m). Large fieldstones were placed above this layer, one of which was found in situ (length 0.8 m, width 0.4 m, height 0.3 m). These stones covered and protected the pipe. A small opening, covered with a small stone (0.1 × 0.1 m), was discerned in the pipe. It probably served for checkup and for cleaning the pipe. The walls of the aqueduct were coated with two layers of hydraulic plaster, composed of lime, ash, fine gravel and crushed potsherds.
The western section (Figs. 3, 4) was so badly damaged that it was not excavated; alternatively, it was documented and reconstructed. This section was discovered immediately below surface and extended for a distance of c. 4 m. The southern wall was severed by the backhoe that exposed the continuation of the water pipe, which was also damaged. The pipe was composed of sections (length of section c. 0.5 m) and was set in place atop two layers of cement. The dark brown bottom layer (thickness c. 0.25 m) served as bedding and overlaid the virgin soil. It contained small pieces of flint, cement and small and medium-sized stones. The upper cement layer (thickness c. 0.25 m) contained very small stones and was meant to stabilize and reinforce the pipe. Two similar layers were used to cover the pipe. The channel’s northern wall was not excavate.
The eastern section contained several pottery fragments, dating to the Roman and Ottoman periods; however, these fragments did not come from stratigraphic contexts and are of no use in dating the aqueduct. Nonetheless, segments of this aqueduct had been excavated in the past and dated to the Second Temple period (HA-ESI 114:116*–117*).