What may or may not have been a prehistoric or early medieval enclosure appears on only one map in the historical record, a 1930 Ordnance Survey six-inch edition, where a draughtsman marked an arc of hachuring roughly 37 metres long, curving from north to southeast across the south-west corner of a rectangular field. Hachuring on OS maps typically indicated raised earthen features, the kind of curved bank that might once have defined a farmstead, a ringfort, or some form of enclosed settlement. But the 1838 six-inch survey and the later 25-inch plan show nothing of the sort at this location, which leaves the 1930 marking in an awkward position, neither confirmed by earlier surveyors nor repeated by later ones.

The uncertainty does not end with the maps. Quarrying activity has disturbed the ground in this area, and there is now no physical evidence at ground level of any enclosure ever having existed. It is possible the 1930 cartographer recorded a genuine earthwork that was already degraded by that point and subsequently destroyed entirely. It is equally possible the marking was an error, or that it captured a field boundary or natural feature that was misread as something older. Without the physical remains to examine, the question cannot be resolved. What the site illustrates, in a quietly useful way, is how fragile the archaeological record can be, and how a single ambiguous line on a mid-century map can be all that survives of something that might once have mattered considerably to the people who built it.