No raised mound survives above the surface, no stone kerb breaks the pasture. What remains is a cropmark, the faint circular signature left in grass or crops when buried archaeology subtly alters how the ground above it grows. At around eleven metres in diameter, this ring barrow, a type of low circular earthwork typically associated with Bronze Age burial and ritual, is visible only under the right conditions, and even then only sometimes.

The site was first formally identified during the Bruff aerial photographic survey of 1986, recorded under reference Bruff 234.3 (AP 4/3664). It does not appear on Ordnance Survey Ireland historic maps, which suggests either that the earthwork had already been reduced to ground level before systematic mapping of the area, or that it was never prominent enough to attract the notice of nineteenth-century surveyors. What is striking about the monument's archival history is its inconsistency across different imaging technologies. The cropmark appears clearly on OSi orthoimagery captured between 2005 and 2012, but is absent from Digital Globe imagery taken between 2012 and 2013, and absent again from a Google Earth image dated 28 June 2018. This flickering visibility is characteristic of cropmarks generally; they depend on moisture levels, crop type, and seasonal stress in the vegetation, meaning the same buried feature can be conspicuous one summer and invisible the next. The record was compiled by Alison McQueen and Vera Rahilly and uploaded in September 2020.

The field sits roughly 85 metres east of the townland boundary with Tonteere and around 75 metres south of a watercourse, in terrain described as rough, wet, and water-shaped, the kind of low-lying pasture that holds moisture and resists cultivation. Two further ring barrows lie just to the west and south-west, at approximately 11 and 25 metres respectively, suggesting this is part of a small funerary cluster rather than an isolated monument. There is nothing to see at ground level on an ordinary visit, and no public monument signage. Those interested in the site are best served by comparing the 1986 aerial survey image with the OSi orthoimage record, where the circular cropmark is at its most legible. The surrounding landscape, quiet and undrained, gives some sense of why these fields have preserved their archaeology so incompletely and so intermittently.