VALERIU SÎRBU, Arheologia funerară şi sacrificiile: o terminolo

202 COMPTES-RENDUS
of specializes terms) begins
with a translation mistake right in the title: an unifying. It would have been
correct to say a unifying, u being, in this situation, a semi-vowel which
behaves like a consonant in the case of articles (definite or indefinite).
The book’s structure is simple, opening with an Introduction (I., p.
7-14) followed by two chapters which constitute the body of the work:
Funerary archaeology and sacrifices (II., p. 15-53) and Clay vessels from
the Geto-Dacian world (III., p. 55-77) and ending with the Bibliography
(IV., p. 79-80) and the Illustration (V., p. 81-123).
In the Introduction, the parts that make up the book are presented
and explained, with the mention that the volume had in view especially the
Thracian world (p. 7). This aspect is obvious all along the book, reason for
which we consider that the title of the volume should have expressed this
more clearly. Another statement which practically excuses all the possible
shortcomings of the work is that the created system is one that is opened
to any kind of data, data that even was not perceived by the authors, or
will appear in the future discoveries (p. 8). The database is presented as
split into two large parts (the funerary domain and non cremated human
bones in non-funerary contexts), each of these being structured on three
levels (the monument’s type and its essential characteristics, the
archaeological complexes in which the dead were discovered and the
dead with its personal characteristics and its grave goods (p. 8). The
difficulties of the systematization of the data due to the lack of sufficient
information for the cases researched up to the present moment were also
described in this introductory part. It is a pity that the author didn’t offer
some more clear models for the registration of the data on the field, fact
which would have assured a better way of keeping track of the
information. The hardware and software information related to the created
database were presented at the end of the Introduction (p. 13-14).
The second chapter, dealing with the funerary archaeology and
sacrifices, is structured in two main parts: a dictionary of terms and a
general lexis (if we are to follow the author’s own translation, even if
dictionary of terms looks very much like a pleonasm.
The Dictionary of terms tries to define the general terms of the
funerary field with the desire / hope of stimulating a future unified
language which would eliminate the so frequent confusions due to the
more or less chaotic use of specialized terms. The words that are more or
less ambiguous were followed by commentaries that try to explain the
choice made by the author. One of the most interesting terms, largely
discussed, is that of cemetery / necropolis (p. 16-17). The statement that