That uncertainty is itself revealing. When McCaffrey catalogued the site in 1952, he described it in the same breath as both a hut circle and a fort, two categories that carry quite different implications, one domestic and modest, the other defensive or at least bounded. The site is roughly circular, with a diameter of approximately 14.3 metres, and it was once defined by a bank with an entrance gap on the south-east side.

A hut circle, in general terms, is the ground-level remnant of a prehistoric or early medieval round dwelling, its walls reduced over centuries to a low earthen ring. A small fort, or enclosed settlement, might look very similar from above but would have served a more communal or protective function. The fact that McCaffrey applied both terms suggests the remains were already ambiguous by the mid-twentieth century. What filled the interior was not artefacts or structural debris in any clear sequence, but field rubble, the accumulated clearance of generations of farmers working the surrounding tillage. That in-filling has effectively buried whatever original evidence might have settled the question of the site's purpose. The south-facing slope would have made it a sensible location for a settlement of almost any period, sheltered and well-lit, but that observation only deepens the puzzle rather than resolving it.