Having been out of it for about 20 years following the publication of my work
Essential Material Attribute Description
http://books.google.com/books?id=rTeM0fWIdg0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=essential+material+attribute+description&source=bl&ots=MrrUKEbeOw&sig=OjlbvPsZvUaxFahtD_w60nsaPRA&hl=en&ei=v_W1TZrrEZKG0QGs4ZGECQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So I come back to the field and attend a lecture about the excavation of a kitchen and low and behold the main centerpiece of quantification is 

a list of the number of pieces by type

of course it went with the quantification of bits by function- (of course it stated the obvious that is to say it said that what was a kitchen was a kitchen)

that was it for quantification

(not part of my interest here but I would suggest that once artifacts went into a secondary deposit the thing to identify was the nature of the structure and functions of the secondary deposit)

But to get an update I turn to you good people.

What is the utility of counting pieces  for the visualization of a deposit or for any future use in answering questions about the deposit.

I can see the utility of bit count to describe basic presence or absence and of course it would enable the museum to make sure that when they let someone look at the stuff they got all the bits back.

I don’t mind seeing a bit count however I think that it is never ever sufficient, nor is for that matter simple functional characterization of primary functional designations. 

I would suggest that artifacts be described in reports so that the information can be used to do more than simply account for the number of pieces in a box.

to give an example

Two  whole objects described by the traditional bit scale which seems to be ever popular.

three bits of a teacup

three bits of a large roman amphora

both broke into three bits

behaviorally the bit count is utterly useless, it is also useless to recreate the formation

You could trip over the ampora bits
the teacup bits would be barely consequential

Pieces or sherd or shard counts seem to me to be insufficient and of only the most minimal utility.

So good people weigh in on this. Should such minimal quantification be all that is provided in the standard report?

Thank you for your time and consideration of this vexing question.

Conrad