The cemetery of Ayia Sotira is located near the modern town of Nemea and close to the Classical and Hellenistic Sanctuary of Zeus. The site lies on the slopes of Mount Prophetes Elias on the western side of the valley of Nemea, close to the Mycenaean settlement of Tsoungiza and in the wider vicinity of the palace of Mycenae and the cemetery of Aidonia. The cemetery was discovered in 2002 as a result of looting and was excavated from 2006 until 2008. The project was conducted under the auspices of the Canadian Institute in Greece and was co-directed by Robert Angus K. Smith from the University of Brock (Canada) and Mary K. Dabney and James C. Wright from Bryn Mawr College (USA), with the collaboration of Evangelia Pappi from the Fourth Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and Sevasti Triantaphyllou of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece.

The cemetery was used by the settlement at Tsoungiza, located approximately 1 km away, with which it maintains visual contact. The soft bedrock of the area in which the chamber tombs were cut and its proximity to a water source must have been decisive for the choice of location, while some connection to cultivated land cannot be ruled out. The site consists of six chamber tombs, two of them extensively looted, and was in use during the period of the late Mycenaean occupation of Tsoungiza, in ceramic terms from LH IIIA:2 (c. 1410/1325-1365/1275 bce) (perhaps even LH IIIA:1 (c. 1490/1400-1410/1325 bce)) to LH IIIB:2 (c. 1300/1250-1200 bce) (with some hint of early LH IIIC activity (c. 1200-1100 bce)), reaching its most extensive use in LH IIIB:1 (c. 1365/1275-1300/1250 bce). The burial practices observed in the tombs at Ayia Sotira are in accordance with the general picture concerning Mycenaean funerary practices in chamber tombs, namely primary burials placed on the chamber floor, or in pits and niches formed in the chamber or dug in the dromos (passage) and secondary burials in pits dug in the chamber, or in side niches and pits in the dromos. The dead were furnished with pottery vessels, as was the usual practice in the Argolid during this period, primarily painted jugs and stirrup jars, as well as stone and faience beads. Clay figurines of the Psi and Tau type occur but are very few. Ayia Sotira, then, is a typical Mycenean chamber tomb cemetery that demonstrates common practices with the nearby cemeteries at Aidonia, Zygouries, Berbati, Prosymna, Mycenae, and the chamber tomb of Barnavos. Its material does not present any particular interest, in the sense that it consists almost exclusively of pottery vessels of types commonly found in tombs, while the absence of metal objects is in sharp contrast to the tombs from Aidonia and Mycenae. What is, however, of particular value is the use of specialized studies to reconstruct and interpret the mortuary practices.

The book consists of ten chapters, including the Introduction (Chapter 1) and Conclusions (Chapter 10) and an extensive bibliography. Chapters 2 and 3 concern the description of the tombs, the skeletal remains and finds uncovered in them, examined according to the area where they were found (dromos, stomion (doorway), and chamber), followed by a brief interpretation and conclusions. The description of the tombs is accompanied by ample and detailed plans, sections, and illustrations of the tombs and their finds. Chapters 4 to 9 concern the specialized studies conducted and include micromorphology, analysis of human remains, plant remains, and organic residues. The Appendix, by Camilla MacKay and Alan M. Stahl, refers to the small quantity of pottery fragments and coins collected through surface survey from the area of the cemetery that attest to human activity in the vicinity from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries ad. This notion is corroborated by the discovery of a Byzantine settlement in the vicinity during the survey conducted as part of the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP).

The methodology employed in the excavation of the tombs is paradigmatic in terms of its meticulousness and efficiency and has already been used by the authors in the NVAP and for the excavation of the Barnavos tomb in 2002 (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Pappi, Triantaphyllou, Dabney, Karkanas, Kotzamani and Livarda2008). The recording system used consisted of the application of excavations units (EUs), stratigraphic units (SUs), and square meter units (SMUs), thus ensuring the accurate position of features and finds. Moreover, vertical earth sections or balks kept at the dromoi and chambers of the tombs allowed the preservation and examination of its complex stratigraphy and thus the recovery of information, given the fact that excavating the dromos stratigraphically can be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The cemetery of Ayia Sotira is the second case after the chamber tomb at Barnavos (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Pappi, Triantaphyllou, Dabney, Karkanas, Kotzamani and Livarda2008) where micromorphology has been conducted (Ch. 4, by Panagiotis Karkanas). The value of this method in excavating Mycenaean tombs lies in the fact that the examination of stratigraphy at a microscopic scale can be more effective than simple observation in a context with a complex sedimentary formation. The insight provided is decisive in identifying the various episodes of opening and filling the dromoi of the tombs, a process that has been difficult to reconstruct and has troubled researchers (Boyd, Reference Boyd2002: 63–64). Outlining the history of the tomb's use in turn contributes to the reconstruction of the funerary and post-funerary ritual process.

Even though a large number of Mycenaean cemeteries has been excavated, osteological analysis has been conducted in very few cases. The state of preservation of the osteological material at Ayia Sotira (Ch. 5, by Sevasti Triantaphyllou) was generally poor due to taphonomic factors, the multiple reopenings, and the occasional clearances of the tombs, as well as modern looting. Therefore, the contribution of an expert in the recovery of the material and her on-site observations were vital for the reconstruction of the burial process and the treatment of the deceased. The osteological material provides interesting information concerning the demographic profile and health status of the deceased, which in turn throws light on aspects of the social structure and ideology of the community that used the cemetery, such as deliberate underrepresentation of certain age and gender groups or inequality between the sexes. The latter seems to be reflected in the predominance of men over women buried in the tombs, an observation that revives debate on the subject (Cavanagh & Mee, Reference Cavanagh and Mee1998: 127). Moreover, its contribution in understanding the community's attitudes and behaviours towards the treatment of the remains of their dead is vital. Hence, Triantaphyllou argues for a connection between age and the manipulation of the deceased, as seems to be observed in the cases of neonates and subadults, while the transformation of human remains through various practices of manipulation into socially meaningful fragments seems to have had a significant role in identity construction and negotiation for the living community.

The archaeobotanical samples (Ch. 6, by G. Kotzamani & A. Livarda) taken from the chambers, stomia, dromoi, and the area around the burials, as well as from the inside of pottery vessels, comprise the first case where such an analysis is associated with a Mycenaean mortuary context. Regardless of the low quantity and high fragmentation of the plant material—due to the absence of extensive fire use, the multiple episodes of activity in the tombs, and the disturbance of modern looting—the archaeobotanical research provides a particularly interesting, though tentative, reconstruction of the activities taking place in and around the tomb, while testing the validity of interpretations based on other types of evidence. The material retrieved is homogeneous in all tombs and concerns species such as cereals, legumes, and fruits, species also mentioned in the Linear B tablets as rations and religious offerings. The occurrence of these species could attest to the preparation and consumption of food, as well as to food offerings, while the presence of local plants might be connected to mortuary practice. Most quantities were concentrated in the area of the dromos, which corroborates the interpretation that this space was used for funerary and post-funerary rites.

The archaeobotanical analysis is complemented by the examination of the sparse wood charcoal macroremains (Ch. 7, by Maria Ntinou) and phytoliths (Ch. 8, by Georgia Tsartsidou) that provide information concerning the vegetation and the environmental conditions of the site in the past and the utilization of plants in everyday activities. Wood charcoal recovered from the dromos of Tomb 4 seems to support the notion that small fires for ritual purposes, such as cooking the funerary meal, were set in the dromoi of tombs (Gallou, Reference Gallou2005: 124). Moreover, the occurrence in some dromoi of traces of black pine, a species high in resin and appropriate to be used as torchwood could indicate its use as a torch in relation to the funerary rites, to light the inside of the chamber or in the reopening of the dromos. The analysis of phytoliths suggests that no plants were deposited inside the chamber, nor were the dead placed on mats made of reeds, but it does not preclude the use of wooden beds, since wood produces very low quantities of phytoliths.

Organic residue analysis on pottery vessels (Ch. 9, by Maria Roumpou) demonstrated that residue preservation is poor—either because the vessels deposited in the tombs were not used extensively, if at all, or due to the nature of the residue—and seem to attest rather to their symbolic use. The material examined from stirrup jars, considered usually to contain perfumed oil when found in tombs, provided evidence for a plant-derived oil, but no clear traces of substances that would have perfumed the oil.

Cases where both a settlement and cemetery are uncovered offer valuable opportunities for understanding aspects of social structure, religious practice, and ideology. The location of the burial ground in close proximity to the settlement, but at a ‘safe’ distance from it, could attest to possible notions regarding pollution (physical or spiritual), while evidence of repair works in some tombs indicates the desire to maintain the traditional burial place, most likely due to its association with ancestors and community identity. The proximity of Tsoungiza and Ayia Sotira to the palatial centre at Mycenae offers an interesting occasion to observe the impact of the latter on the former. The introduction of chamber tombs to the Nemea Valley appears to reflect the incorporation of the area into the religious and cultural influence exercised by the palace and the alignment of the political allegiances of Tsoungiza to Mycenae. Similarly, evidence for ceremonial feasting at the settlement (Dabney et al., Reference Dabney, Halstead, Thomas and Wright2004) suggests the possible adoption of palatial practices as a way to strengthen the association of Tsoungiza with Mycenae.

The study is exemplary, not only for the methodology employed in the excavation process, the diligence of which ensures the retrieval and observation of as much information as possible, but also in the application of a wide range of scientific methods that were for the first time used in a Mycenaean mortuary context. Regardless of the tentative character of some conclusions due to the fragmentary material, the observations and interpretations offered afford interesting suggestions and possibilities to be pursued further by future research.