The field was known to be a burial place for paupers, the kind of informal, unconsecrated ground used during times of hardship to receive those who could not afford a churchyard plot. That history alone would be enough to mark it out, but the field also preserves, in its very shape, the ghost of something considerably older.

The enclosure appears on Ordnance Survey six-inch maps as a rectangular field, measuring roughly 40 metres north to south and 45 metres east to west. When the scholar Bowman noted it in 1934, he recorded the dimensions as 47 yards by 41 and called it a "rectangular fort", a term used loosely in older antiquarian writing for an enclosed area of presumed early medieval or prehistoric origin. The original field boundaries have since been removed, so the outer form is largely gone at ground level. What survives is more subtle: a low rise in the grass marks the inner line of a smaller square enclosure, approximately 29 metres across, sitting inside where the larger boundary once ran. This kind of nested or double enclosure, one ring set within another, is a feature sometimes associated with early ringforts or with sites that were reused across long periods. Whether the enclosure here was defensive, agricultural, ceremonial, or simply a convenient pre-existing boundary that later communities found useful for burial, nobody has yet firmly established.

The site sits in ordinary farmland, and with the field boundaries gone, there is little to announce it to a passing eye. The low rise described in the ground is the kind of thing that rewards slow walking and a certain willingness to look at grass rather than through it.