It is easy to miss from the road, and easier still to mistake for a natural feature of the waterlogged ground. In fact, it is a pond barrow, a type of prehistoric funerary monument defined not by a mound but by its absence: a low enclosing bank surrounds a central hollow, giving the interior its characteristic saucer-like profile, the inverse of the burial mounds most people associate with prehistoric burial practice.

The bank can be traced continuously around the site and measures on average 9.5 metres wide, sitting only slightly higher on the inside than the outside, with the difference between those two faces amounting to little more than ten centimetres across most of its circuit. Where the ground has been cut back into the natural slope at the north-north-west, the internal face rises to roughly a metre, lending that section a more pronounced appearance than the rest. The interior measures approximately 22.7 metres north to south and 21.5 metres east to west, and the overall monument spans around 42 metres in both directions. There is no identifiable entrance at any point, which is itself a feature of the type. A possible external ditch survives to the west-north-west, though this is thought to relate to a separate barrow feature nearby rather than to the enclosure as a whole. The site shows up clearly on aerial photography, which is often how such low, denuded earthworks are first properly recognised. Michael Connolly examined it as part of his 2008 doctoral research at University College Cork on the prehistoric settlement of the Lee Valley landscape around Tralee, a study that placed individual monuments like this one within their broader territorial and visual context.

That context is worth considering. The site sits in ground that slopes downward toward marshy, low-lying terrain, yet from within the enclosure there are open views to the east and north-east. To the south-south-east, a low hill carries the remains of Glanbane hillfort, a feature that would have been equally visible to whoever used or built this monument in prehistory. Whether that relationship was meaningful is now unknowable, but the two sites share a landscape that was clearly occupied and marked over a long period.