The publication under review comprises a much-needed typological analysis and corpus of numerous temples and their sanctuaries in the Roman East, defined here by Arthur Segal as the ‘broad region bordered by the Mediterranean sea and the Sinai peninsula to the west, Cilicia to the north and the large desert areas of Syria and the Arabian peninsula to the east and south’ (viii). S. does not explain why he excludes certain structures, including the Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima; but the corpus is remarkably varied and ranges from well-known cases, such as the sanctuaries at Heliopolis, through to less familiar examples, such as the multitude of village temples across the Hauran. In Part 1, S. begins by briefly framing the perspective of his work in the Introduction, stating that, during the Hellenistic period, the Roman East witnessed a ‘process of amalgamation between eastern and classical traditions’, which was then accelerated by direct Roman rule from 63 b.c. (viii–ix). Thus, between the first and third centuries a.d., ‘religious architecture gave faithful expression to the complexity of the Roman East and to the multiplicity of traditions pertaining to ethnic and religious aspects as well as to the powerful influence of Imperial Rome’ (viii). To demonstrate most effectively this fusion of influences, S. applies the same methodology used in his contribution to T. Kaizer (ed.), The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (2008), 97–132, and divides his temples into Vitruvian and non-Vitruvian categories. This division is based upon whether a temple can be ‘described and analysed according to the standards and criteria defined by Vitruvius in his De Architectura’, although S. also acknowledges that non-Vitruvian temples could possess components derived from the ‘classical inventory of forms’ (ix).

In ch. 1, S. studies seventy-six well-preserved temples, of which fifty are categorized as Vitruvian and twenty-six as non-Vitruvian. The Vitruvian group is further sub-divided into five temple types: distylos in antis, tetrastylos in antis, tetrastylos prostylos, hexastylos prostylos and peripteros; and the non-Vitruvian group into four types: concentric, exedra, broad-room and heterogeneous. Each type is then analysed through the following components: location and orientation, dimensions, stairways, podia, columns, doorways, walls, roof and gable, windows, exterior and interior decoration, organization and design of the interior space, paving and stairwells. In ch. 2, S. examines the sanctuaries within which several of the temples from ch. 1 are located, categorizing eighteen as urban and thirteen as extra-urban. The two groups are studied through the following criteria: location, dimensions, shape and plan, walls, entrance(s), organization of the interior space (including location of the temple, altar and other structures), decoration, religious character and chronological framework.

Part 2 comprises an excellent architectural corpus of the structures studied in ch. 1, with an additional nine temples bringing the overall quantity to eighty-seven. Within individual entries, S. summarizes the history of research, analyses the various architectural features and comments on chronological aspects. Each entry is richly supported by figures, plans and photographs, and often brings together material from disparate and obscure sources. One potential area for improvement could be in S.'s treatment of epigraphic evidence, as chronologically significant inscriptions are often not fully referenced — for example, D. R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (1995) is notably absent in S.'s discussion of the ‘Temple of Bel’. Furthermore, S. sometimes gives disproportionate attention to earlier studies, such as H. C. Butler's architectural surveys in the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria (1907–1916). That said, S. typically synthesizes material from multiple excavation reports to produce concise, but comprehensive, commentaries on each case. He offers a remarkably accessible corpus that will undoubtedly benefit the wider discipline of religious architecture.

However, S. makes a far greater contribution to scholarship in his typological evaluations in Part 1. In his Introduction, S. emphasizes that the diversity of religious architecture in the Roman East is a fundamental issue in typological studies and he directly engages with this diversity throughout his analysis. In particular, ch. 1 includes an additional sub-section in which S. examines ‘Nabataean temples as a singular phenomenon in religious architecture’ (45). S. is not simply following the scholarly tradition of a ‘culturally monolithic Nabataea’ that was rightly criticized by P. Alpass (The Religious Life of Nabataea (2013), 8); rather, S.'s typological approach highlights the local diversity of religious architecture, such as the unique forms of Petra's four major temples (48). Whilst I disagree with S.'s overall conclusion that the Nabataeans appropriated ‘ready-made’ architectural forms with no local modification (50), his typological approach certainly prompts fresh interpretations of the material. S.'s approach also encourages comparative analysis of sanctuaries that are often otherwise geographically or socio-politically segregated in modern scholarship. For instance, S. notes that the sanctuaries of ‘Bel’ in Palmyra, ‘Jupiter’ in Damascus, Artemis in Gerasa and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem all feature particularly deep propylaea leading onto porticoes (102). S. emphasizes that the distinction between the shaded area of the propylon and the light of the sanctuary courtyard would have been an ‘inextricable element in the experience of the pilgrim’ (102). In so doing, S. draws attention to patterns of worship amongst sanctuaries that are often perceived as belonging to different spheres of influence. To summarize, by recognizing both the similarities and differences in religious architecture, S.'s typological approach fosters an appreciation for the complexity of religious life in the Roman East and demonstrates how a thematic approach can stimulate innovative interpretations.