Went back to look for more to photograph and to shoot video. Beside the drystane fieldwall that faces the coast a whole line of saplings has been planted. The earth is dug up in a line and large boulders are exposed within all over the shop - do hope that these are simply an older fieldwall of bigger material rather than archaeology disrupted. Where a stone in the sub-rectangular feature atop the mound had the whole of one edge within the mound 'visible' the hole was now covered by a mass of fine soil. I assumed this to be the work of rodents. But then in the outside of the mound that side I found several cubic holes about six inches across dug into it. A family doing amateur archaeology maybe (or were the small shoeprints I had seen on the track coming down only from the tree planters). Couldn't be a 'proper' archaeologist's pits as these diggings had not been filled or covered, not even the one with the turf flap and its soil still attached.
This time I looked for the walling Raymond mentioned as being exposed in the coastline opposite the two main features. To my relatively untrained eye there was not enough to confirm this - what there was the cynical could be put down to geology and boundary walls.
Next task I failed to do last visit was to locate the NE mound. The NE mound is described as 50m away from the main mound. So, reading the N mound "20m N of this" as referring to its placing vis-a-vis the main mound it cannot refer to that immediately left of the N mound (which anyway shows none of the peripheral upright slabs), this would seem to refer to a great pile of slabs just beyond the top of the freshwater pool. Not much of a mound if my identification be correct, and the 'rockery' would have to arrived there after Lamb's visit. Only its size sets it apart from the several such assemblages hereabouts in a very rough line and the further heaps along the coastline referred to in my previous fieldnotes.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road