The word church in the site's classification hints at an ecclesiastical origin, yet nothing resembling a church building has been visible here for a very long time, and the mounds themselves are the only physical trace of whatever once stood or lay buried.

The site's paper history is quietly puzzling. It does not appear on the Ordnance Survey six-inch maps of 1842 or 1904, suggesting it had either been forgotten by the time those surveys were made or was considered too indistinct to record. It surfaces again in a 1937 OS map, marked within a burial ground. A note by Bowman in 1934 describes the place simply as grass-covered mounds on the north side of the enclosure, and that description still holds. The first mound is oval in plan, roughly 3.5 metres by 4.5 metres and only about 0.6 metres high, with an overgrown hollow sitting close to its south-east side, the kind of depression that often signals collapsed stonework or a robbed-out feature beneath the turf. The second mound, to the south, is broader and more nearly circular, measuring around five metres by six metres. Neither announces itself dramatically; both simply sit in the ground, accumulating folklore.

The label fairy ring, applied by local tradition, is the sort of name that tends to attach itself to low earthworks whose original function has been lost from living memory. Circular or subcircular earthen features, particularly those near old burial grounds, were often absorbed into fairy-lore once their sacred or functional meaning faded. That this site was known as a burial ground at the same time suggests the two explanations coexisted without much contradiction for the people who lived nearby.