Thanks for the reply.
So the ‘provenance’ is Native American (of some era[?])yes
and the ‘context’ is that the item is from the central U. S. (Kansas[?]Yes
found by you[?])Yes
And the environment is that the find was among "ancient stone tools”. No, a single "quick pick" from a small area which has produced several other tools.
Is the stone in the image inherent (typical of) to its ‘found’ location? Not as far as any immediate known lithic source but a possibility of the stream bed aprox 1/4 mile away.
Was it discovered at grade, or in strata (if so, how deep)? Recently unearthed by construction, from 12 inches or less
Was it near a running water source?ace 1/4 ml. dist aprox 15 ft. below
Was there a direct proximity location to the tools? N/A
Did it have any notable association with the tools? Being one?
Was it among bones (animal, or Human)? No
In your estimation, was the stone ‘dropped’ or ‘placed’? Unknown, recently unearthed
Forgive my inquisitive nature but the best understanding is the conceptual kind in my estimation. Is this some specific requirement or more of a common criteria? Although I can see how some of the information would lend directly to one's assessment, is this the overall purpose? Is it for that which by observation is suspect but of no particular familiarity or for everything removed from your grid section for instance?
You mentioned something a few days ago which I do agree with wholeheartedly, that being the importance and value of a well-trained eye. The fact we were discussing Gault gave me a bit of a chuckle realizing the odds that we were actually laying the "well-trained" assessment directly on ol' SteveO. LOL! I'm sure he's an actual hand at somethings...stringing a grid for instance!