Although the first academic discussion of ‘the’ augustales dates back to the mid-nineteenth century, the difficulty of fully comprehending this socially ambivalent group — wealthy and prestigious, but often with a servile background — remains. Diversity was the norm, as the institution's geographical spread, the local organizational signatures and the many local varieties in terminology demonstrate.

Margaret Laird's book, a reworked version of her PhD thesis, breaks a long-standing research tradition on augustales as she combines the methods of four types of specialists: epigraphers and historians (who prioritize text over image) and art historians and archaeologists (who prioritize image over text). She does not want one type of source material to take precedence over another, but aims to ‘consider text, imagery, form and context as parts of a seamless whole’ (20). At times, this focus on ‘the materiality of inscribed monuments’ (15) makes L.’s augustales (and their monuments) seem de-socialized and disembedded from socio-economic realities.

In three sections, L. focuses on monuments of individuals (chs 1–2), of organizations (chs 3–6) and of organizations and members (chs 7–8). In ch. 1, L. argues that augustales interpreted and tweaked the epigraphical conventions (regional stock phrases, imagery, architecture, location) to express their individuality and participation in multiple civic and personal communities. She calls this ‘the grammar of representation’, a concept applied to representation of magisterial insignia and biographical narrative scenes in ch. 2.

The long central section comprises the core discussion of the book. Ch. 3 discusses municipal and private augustea, and argues that a building (in this case, the Sacello at Misenum) could influence the development of a shared identity among community members. Ch. 4 explores how the Collegio degli Augustali at Herculaneum helped define the position of the augustales within the civic community. The fifth chapter, which is mainly state of the art, is an archaeological description of the architecture, art and monuments of the Sacello di Miseno, from 27 b.c. to a.d. 117. Finally, ch. 6 focuses on Misenean augustales who acted as public benefactors, drawing the augustales ‘out of the Sacello and into the public eye’ (184).

The third section is on public monuments. Ch. 7 is a case study of a group of statues commissioned by a Herculanean augustalis, and the final chapter of the book is on several paving projects in Iulia Concordia (Regio X).

L.’s case-study approach showcases her talent as a storyteller. By zooming in on very specific situations, she makes the civic community in which the augustales acted almost tangible. The meticulous descriptions of finds and their contexts, the attention to colourful details and the sensory descriptions of monuments (especially 255–6) bring the fascinating world of the Roman city to life.

The introduction explicates the two mantras of the book. First, the locally anchored augustales had little to do with the state-level imperial cult. She thus corroborates the conclusion reached by historians and epigraphers: ‘emperor worship was not the raison d’être of the Augustality’ (276). L. does not, however, offer an alternative. One possibility that comes to mind is the organization of the augustalia, religiously inspired games in honour of Augustus, celebrated on the birthday of the first Princeps.

Second, the symbolic language of monument making was broad and flexible at the same time: the basics were widely applied and understood, but individual expression was tailored to fit specific needs and contexts. Despite this focus on local contexts, L. largely ignores the repercussions of the geographical differentiation of ingenui, incerti and liberti among augustales — a major defining characteristic of the augustalitas. As the number of freedmen in southern Italy was about twice that of the north, de-emphasizing the servile aspects of the augustalitas would make sense if her case studies were north Italian. Most, however, are not. Methodologically, L. introduces Anthony Cohen's work (1985) on shared symbols. He argued that community members worked with their own interpretation of a common set of symbols — the underlying theme throughout L.’s study.

The most groundbreaking aspect of this book is L.’s passionate reconstruction of why monuments were shaped and/or built as and where they were. This makes the discussion of, for instance, the tomb of the Pompeian C. Munatius Faustus and his wife Naevoleia Tyche (64–9) intriguing. L. argues that an active and deliberate interaction with the surrounding context existed, adding a crucial subtext to the inscription and monument. She stresses the idea of active dialogue, mimesis and emulation.

L. regularly touches upon the concept of mimesis. Augustales imitated commemorative behaviour archetypically linked to the decuriones (for example, 38 on arrangement of titles on an epitaph), appropriated symbols of a superior group (for example, 44–6 on insignia) or architecturally mimicked the meeting place of city councillors (for example, 135–6 on the Curia Augustiana at Herculaneum). However, using the discourse of the legitimate authorities (also architecturally) to define oneself is not innocent. It is a type of power play with massive social ramifications.

In sum, this is a solid study that dares to use a different methodological approach to the augustales, which can only be applauded. A great merit of this work is the categorical refusal to let the archaeological evidence ‘be filtered through the lens of the imperial cult’ (7). Most importantly, L. makes clear that these multivalent, inscribed monuments interacted with their surroundings and were geographically diversified expressions, adaptations and manipulations of a broadly understood ‘grammar of representation’.