When the site was first formally recorded in 1988, it was logged as a seventeenth-century house, yet there appears to be no evidence to support that earlier date, no documentation, no architectural detail, no documentary source that might explain where the designation came from. The ruins on the ground tell a different story, one that belongs to the late Georgian or Regency period rather than the 1600s.

This kind of mismatch between a recorded classification and the physical evidence is not unusual in older inventories, where sites were sometimes assigned dates on the basis of local tradition, a misread map, or simply a reasonable guess that was never revisited. The gap between a seventeenth-century attribution and an eighteenth or early nineteenth-century reality spans roughly a hundred years, enough to place the building in an entirely different political and social context. A house from the 1600s would have belonged to the plantation era or its immediate aftermath; one from the 1780s or 1820s would more likely reflect the modest rural building activity of the Protestant Ascendancy period or the consolidation of landholding that followed. Without further investigation, the precise history of whoever built or occupied this particular structure remains unresolved.