About 28 metres across, it survives as a low earthen bank with faint traces of an internal fosse, the shallow ditch that would originally have run just inside the bank. A gap in the bank on the east-south-east side looks to be a modern intrusion rather than an original entrance, which leaves the enclosure's true layout somewhat ambiguous. That ambiguity extends to its interpretation: researchers Gibbons and Higgins described it in 1988 as a henge-like structure, invoking the class of prehistoric ceremonial monuments best known from sites like Avebury or the outer earthwork at Stonehenge, where a bank sits unusually outside a ditch. The archaeologist J. Waddell later suggested the more cautious label of embanked enclosure, a term that acknowledges the form without overcommitting to a particular function or period.

What makes the site more arresting than the enclosure alone is the company it keeps. The ridge summit above it holds a pre-bog field system, the low lynchets and boundaries of an ancient agricultural landscape that was eventually overwhelmed and preserved by the growing bog, and a stone row, a linear arrangement of standing stones whose purpose remains the subject of quiet academic debate. Together, these three features point to a stretch of landscape that was organised, inhabited, and perhaps ritually significant long before the bog closed over it. The chronology is uncertain, but the pattern of enclosure, field boundaries, and stone alignment appearing together on a single ridge suggests deliberate, layered use of the same elevated ground over a considerable span of time.