One square (c. 4×4 m; Figs. 2, 3) was excavated; a section of a wall and two installations were exposed c. 2.5 m below the surface and at an elevation of 7.4 m above sea level, inside a layer of dark gray grumosol. The wall (W100) was built in two phases and the two installations apparently related to its different construction phases.The early phase of the wall (width c. 0.8 m) survived a single course high and was built of two rows of uniform size kurkar stones (length c. 0.2–0.3 m); the later phase, preserved a single course high and was built of small kurkar stones.The wall in this phase was narrower (width c. 0.6 m) and therefore the western side of the earlier wall remained exposed. An installation of fired clay, whose nature is unknown (L105; Figs. 4, 5), was exposed near the early wall. Since the installation was built on top of a destroyed section of this wall, it was presumably used at the same time as the later phase of the wall.The second installation, built of sandstone slabs, appeared in the square’s western balk, c. 1 m west of the wall; itwas not exposed in its entirety due to the limits of the excavationandwas probably associated with the early phase of the wall, although there is no clear connection between them.The installation (L102; upper diam. c. 0.8 m, height c. 0.4 m; Figs. 6, 7) was in the shape of an inverted cone, whereby the diameter of the upper part was wider than that of its lower part. Several round stones were revealed on the bottom of the installation, whose function is unclear, but it was very likely used for storage.
Deep probes excavated in the northwestern and northeastern corners of the square did not reveal additional archaeological strata. On the basis of the ceramic fragments (see below) that were found in the fill near the side of the wall and beneath the foundation of the early wall (depth c. 0.2 m), the two consecutive activity phases can be dated to Early Bronze Age I (3300–3000 BCE).
The ceramic artifacts consisted of 187 body fragments and eighteen diagnostic potsherds, among them rim and side of a deep bowl (Fig. 8:1), a loop handle (Fig. 8:2), two holemouth rims (Fig. 8:3, 4), rim and neck part of a small jar (Fig. 8:5), rim and side part of a pithos (Fig. 8:6), ledge handle fragment (Fig. 8:7), two body sherds decorated with rope ornamentations (only one is illustrated; Fig. 8:8), a complete base of a medium-sized red- slipped jar (Fig. 8:9) and several fragments of thick bases that cannot be ascribed to a specific type of vessel (Fig. 8:10). All the diagnostic potsherds are characteristic of Early Bronze Age I. The vessel assemblage is limited and cannot be dated more precisely. Nevertheless, the general impression favors to ascribe it to the later phase of the period, namely Early Bronze Age IB (E. van den Brink). In addition to these sherds, two fragments of later vessels were found, including a ribbed body sherd, probably from the Byzantine period.
Three flint items were found, among them a small bladelet core (Fig. 9:1) and a fragment of a backed sickle blade (Fig. 9:2); the items are consistent with flint finds from the Chalcolithic period. These finds raise the possibility that activity in the region transpired in the period preceding the Early Bronze Age. It is important to note that the construction style of the wall is similar to that of the walls of a building discovered on Fikhman Street, which was dated to the Pottery Neolithic B period.The proximity of the sites (c. 200 m apart), absence of floors from the early or late phase of the wall and dating of the pottery would seem to indicate a connection between the sites.However, since no Neolithic pottery or flint tools were exposed in the current excavation, it is reasonable to assume that the activity at the site occurred in the Early Bronze Age.Finds from this period were exposed elsewhere in Tel Aviv, including the cemetery in the Qirya quarter and settlement remains on Ha-Masger Street (Braun and van den Brink, in press; Braun, in press).
Two successive phases of activity from Early Bronze Age I were exposed in the excavation.The limited nature of the excavation prevents reconstructing its building plan and function; however,it was presumably used as a dwelling and the installations found nearby were used for storage. The wall was visible in the northern and eastern balks of the excavation square and future excavations at the site may possibly answer questions regarding its function and exact date. The similarity between the wall exposed in the current excavation and the walls of the building located on the adjacent street is intriguing and raises the possibility that a fairly extensive settlement existed in the region.