The misclassification is easy enough to understand. A cashel, the term used for a ringfort built from dry-stone walling rather than an earthen bank, can lose much of its definition over centuries of neglect and vegetation, until what survives is less a structure than a suggestion of one. Here, the circular wall has spread into a broad, rubble-strewn belt, averaging around two and a half metres wide, with internal and external faces standing only a fraction of their original height. What still distinguishes this one is evidence, visible at the southern and north-north-west sections, of a stepped outer face, meaning the wall was likely built in terraced courses, a construction method that gave extra mass and stability to the enclosure.

The site was recorded on the Ordnance Survey's 25-inch plan of 1897 and again on the six-inch edition of 1920, hachured on both to indicate the slight elevation of the rise. Its interior measures roughly 14.2 metres north to south and 14 metres east to west, a modest space that slopes gently towards the south-west and is now scattered with loose boulders, the remnants of that tumbled walling spreading outward some two metres on either side. What gives the spot a particular quality, beyond the ruin itself, is its setting within a multiperiod field system of considerable extent, one that reflects centuries of agricultural organisation across the surrounding limestone landscape. The cashel was not alone even in its own time: another cashel lies approximately 29 metres to the south-west, and a further enclosure sits around 38 metres to the north-north-east, suggesting this was once a cluster of related activity rather than an isolated farmstead.