The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey. SUZANNE K. FISH and STEPHEN A. KOWALEWSKI (eds.). Percheron Press, Clinton Corners, New York, 2009. xxv, 277 pp., illus., maps. $42.50. ISBN-13: 978-0-9797731-0-5.This book is a page-for-page reproduction of the classic The Archaeology of Regions (Fish and Kowalewski, eds., 1990) with two notable exceptions. First, Fish and Kowalewski have written a new prologue to the 2009 edition, bringing their case into the present and assessing the impact of their original volume after 19 years of archaeological work. They note that CRM in most states transitioned from sampling to full coverage (FCS) and that archaeologists all over the world using full-coverage in their research designs. The editors (p. ix) highlight the greatest benefit of FCS as the ability to generate innovative follow-up research at smaller [sic] scales. An added benefit of most modern FCS is the explicit discussion of methods enabling robust comparison. Fish and Kowalewski (p. x) list five general goals of FCS. Most of these not unique to FCS and (very) generally characterize goals that most archaeologists have in their fieldwork. One goal that is important for their position and the position of many of the contributors to the volume is the location and description of all the artifacts or feature arrays deemed significant to the investigator (p. x; emphasis added). This is a noble, but unrealistic, objective. FCS is still sampling (Cowgill, p. 254). The only real differences between sampling and FCS the shape of the sample units and their regularity of proximity. FCS is not a panacea. As their description of the number one objective of FCS highlights, the and sensitivity choices made by the PI based on research objectives. The data not applicable to all problems. However, Plog admits that consistent resolution over contiguous areas allows more flexibility than typical sampling designs.The second change consists of the correction of a printing error in the original. The 1990 hardback version, on page 126 of Wilson's chapter, omitted half a page of text and inserted a similar-sized block from page 128. The omitted text is the final portion of Wilson's methods section and does provide key details of how the data from his version of FCS can be organized and employed to address research problems.The editors tout the benefits of 100 percent surveys (p. 1). Again, it is important to remember that FCS is still sampling. They define FCS as systematic examination of contiguous blocks of terrain at a uniform level of intensity (p. 2), where is a projectand question-specific determination (though not always justified). Region is not defined; they note the volume contains examples of just over fifty to several thousand square kilometers (p. 2). Further, the new preface notes that FCS in the Mediterranean is not typically expansive enough to qualify as regional (p. viii-ix). I find no reason to not entertain more variable definitions of region (see Thurston and Salisbury, eds., Reimagining Regional Analyses: The Archaeology of Spatial and Social Dynamics, 2009). The editors highlight the benefits of FCS in teasing out relationships among sites (networks, systems), especially compared to discontiguous probabilistic strategies. This is the appropriate achievement to tout for modern archaeological research. They argue this is true even in cases of lesser social complexity, as patterning among low density occurrences is not easily detected with moderate size samples (p. 5). They therefore argue (here and elsewhere in the volume) that there are significant inducements to consider full coverage in major segments of North (p. 5). This is important. Though they note in the new preface that CRM use of FCS in North America has increased, with the exception of the Southwest, there is little use of this tool in research here. …