The Ordnance Survey mapped it as a burial ground; locals called it the White Fort. Archaeologists classify it as a cashel, the term used for a ringfort built from stone rather than earthen banks. It may also be something else entirely, possibly an ecclesiastical site, which would help explain the mix of features crammed into its roughly twenty metres of interior space.

The enclosing wall is built in coursed drystone masonry, faced on both its inner and outer surfaces with a rubble core between, and survives to only two or three courses in height, though it is a substantial 2.4 metres wide. A gap on the north-east side, about a metre across, may be the original entrance. Inside, the space is divided into two levels by a low revetment of crude stonework incorporating some unusually large boulders at its base. On the upper, south-western level, three large upright slabs are arranged in a right angle, accompanied by the remains of two adjoining rectangular structures whose walls have largely collapsed to a single course. On the lower, north-eastern level, a small subrectangular area enclosed by rough walling contains further upright slabs, and it is these that most plausibly connect the site to its recorded use as a burial ground. Just outside the main enclosure to the south, a curving run of walling may be the remnant of a secondary circular structure. The layering of all this, a fort that became or always was a burial ground, perhaps also a place of early Christian activity, is what gives the site its particular character. A. O'Sullivan and J. Sheehan documented it in their 1996 archaeological survey of the Iveragh peninsula, drawing attention to the ambiguity that still surrounds it.