It appears in the record as a quarry, which is itself an unusual category to encounter in an archaeological inventory, where the typical entries run to ringforts, standing stones, and souterrains. Quarries are working scars in the landscape rather than monuments, and their presence in such lists usually signals that something older may lie beneath or alongside them, or that the original surveyor suspected as much.

The site was recorded as a quarry in 1988 and again in 1998, first in the Sites and Monuments Record and subsequently in the Record of Monuments and Places. By the time the entry was reviewed, however, the conclusion was that the available evidence did not support treating it as the location of an archaeological monument at all. That is a careful and honest outcome, rarer than it might seem. Landscapes accumulate names and designations over time, and entries in official records have a tendency to persist long after the reasoning behind them has grown uncertain. Here, the ambiguity was acknowledged rather than papered over.