What makes this enclosure quietly puzzling is not what has been found within it, but what has not. Despite its well-preserved double-earthwork form, known as a bivallate enclosure, meaning it carries two concentric lines of defence in the form of a bank and an outer fosse or ditch, no archaeological testing in its immediate vicinity has turned up anything to explain who built it, when, or why.

The site was already notable enough to be recorded on the Ordnance Survey's six-inch map of 1839, which suggests it was a visible and reasonably well-defined feature of the landscape even at that point. The enclosure measures roughly 38 metres north to south and 36 metres east to west, with the defining earthen bank running between five and six metres wide. The outer fosse varies considerably, deepening to around 1.2 metres on the western side while remaining much shallower elsewhere, between 0.2 and 0.5 metres, across the northern and eastern arcs. A single entrance, three metres wide, faces north-east. Archaeological testing carried out in 2000, immediately to the south-east of the enclosure, was reported by Tierney and produced no archaeological features whatsoever, leaving the enclosure's date and function unresolved.

The site sits just off the summit of the hill rather than on it, a placement that feels deliberate but whose logic remains unclear. Whether it served as a ringfort, a stock enclosure, or something else entirely, the earthworks themselves are the only evidence available, and they are not saying much.