F.’s book, based on his doctoral thesis (Speaking Through Spolia: the Language of Architectural Reuse in the Fortifications of Late Roman Greece. Ph.D. Diss., U.C. Berkeley [2006]), focuses on ‘the reused fragments of architecture commonly referred to as spolia’ (p. 1), which he addresses through three case studies of late-antique fortification projects in the Roman province of Achaea (modern Greece). The book represents a much welcomed addition to the growing research on spolia, which has to date primarily been centred around sacred architecture and specific monuments (i.e. The Arch of Constantine). F.’s goal to ‘encourage a consideration of other issues beyond the traditional debates over the utility, aesthetics and ideology of reuse’ (p. 1) is undoubtedly achieved (and to be commended).

After a short introduction, Chapter 2, ‘Themes’, provides a brief survey of various concepts explored throughout the book: the study of spolia, agency theory in archaeology, the roles played by individuals in building projects, and the fortifications in the eastern Mediterranean. F. provides a solid review of spolia studies that is both clear and thought-provoking. F. places great importance on the agency of ‘the common builder’ in the creative use of second-hand material in building projects. On the whole, F. is persuasive in his argument that the principles of spolia use uncovered through the study of specific buildings may be representative of conditions in a particular region or site rather than of empire-wide spolia habits.

In Chapter 3, F. presents the first of his three case studies, examining the ‘Inscription Wall’ at the site of Kolonna on the island of Aegina. He suggests that the use by Roman builders of inscribed blocks in the wall was a local response to construction. F. uses the varied orientation of the inscriptions to argue that there was no overall plan to re-use the material and that individual builders used the second-hand material as they saw fit. F. presents his second case study – the later Roman fortifications at Sparta – in Chapter 4. In this chapter, F. investigates a section (‘R’) of the fortification wall that shows evidence for the careful placement of second-hand material. He uses the arrangement of this material to argue for a change in the aesthetics from the Classical to Late Roman periods in Sparta. In Chapter 5, F. examines his final case study, the late Roman fortress at Isthmia (also see by F., ‘Work Teams on the Isthmian Fortress and the Development of a Later Roman Architectural Aesthetic’, in E.R. Gebhard and T.E. Gregory [edd.], Bridge of the Untiring Sea: the Corinthian Isthmus from Prehistory to Late Antiquity [2015], pp. 311–26), which represents yet another unique approach to spolia. In this case, the orientation of re-used blocks suggests that the builders were actively attempting to hide signs of the blocks’ previous use. Furthermore, due to the extent of the remains, F. has argued that it is possible to identify specific groups of builders based on the ways in which they used the same types of second-hand material.

F. concludes his study by noting subtle, yet unmistakable, signs of locally determined plans for each spolia project discussed. Importantly, it emerges that, despite their use of spolia, many of these local projects were constructed in the same manner as Hellenistic projects, just with second-hand material, suggesting that spolia provided a means of maintaining tradition as well as innovation. In addition, F. notes the importance of identifying regional trends in the study of spolia structures and the driving forces behind them.

In general, F.’s study points to a number of important conclusions. First, decisions and actions taken during the building process can be attributed, in certain circumstances, to both those designing structures and the everyday builders who constructed them. Second, F.’s examples add to the growing evidence for the wholesale incorporation of public buildings, which could only have occurred by authorisation of civic, regional or higher authorities. This ‘official’ character of spolia use is important to understanding the motivations behind the choice of materials for late Roman construction projects. Third, F.’s discussion of fortification walls attests to the fact that these structures were often built carefully within the urban landscape and often with carefully selected spolia, rather than as haphazard constructions to fend off marauding barbarians – a point that has been convincingly argued in the case of the city walls of Gaul, for example (see C. Witschel, ‘Die spätantiken Städte Galliens: Transformationen von Stadtbildern als Ausdruck einer gewandelten Identität?’, in S. Diefenbach and G.M. Müller [edd.], Gallien in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Kulturgeschichte einer Region [2013], pp. 153–200).

F.’s approach provides a means of studying spolia that focuses on the motivation of patrons and builders – a topic of increasing interest in spolia studies in recent years. As a result, F. is able to present evidence of how the builders in his three study locations took markedly different approaches to the use of spolia, dependent upon locally determined circumstances. At the same time, F.’s study includes a much needed examination of non-descript re-use. To date, much of the research on second-hand material has focused on visible spolia but such re-use was by no means a general trend, as many spolia were used in non-visible parts of late-antique buildings. F. notes, for example, that the re-use of elements in fortification walls lacks some of the symbolic and/or aesthetic considerations of spolia in early Christian basilicas. F.’s pragmatic approach to pre-existing materials, however, does not exclude the importance of identifying when patrons and/or builders purposefully arranged and displayed spolia, such as ‘section R’ at Sparta.

As a whole, F.’s book is highly readable, engaging and well illustrated throughout. His three case studies are well contextualised and presented alongside detailed background information, including previous research and interpretations for each case study. His findings are based on detailed analysis and careful reading of the archaeological evidence, much of which rests on detailed first-hand analysis of the monuments themselves. As such F.’s arguments and conclusions are well thought out and on the whole convincing. His study makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the phenomenon of post-classical re-use, offering new regional evidence to the existing debate on ancient recycling.