ABSTRACT
Re-reading the papers in the original edition of Behavioral Problems in Geography is rather like leafing through the pages of the high-school yearbook for the graduating class of '69. Such reminiscing brings back faces, ambitions and expectations. One can see the influences of favorite teachers, like Kenneth Boulding and Kevin Lynch, etched on the ideas that we were struggling to express. The field of cognitive mapping, a term not then in widespread use, had already been singled out as one of those voted most likely to succeed, to go on to bigger and better things. 1 And why not? Who could be so churlish as to disagree with such a judgement? Surely this was a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the promise that was displayed in an impressive register of first efforts. Peter Gould's widely circulated, inspirational essay on mental maps, Thomas Saarinen's persuasive blend of subtle geographical questions and rigorous psychological method, Reginald Golledge's and Gerard Rushton's provocative explorations of the bases of consumer behavior, all presaged exciting new insights into traditional geographic problems. 2 To be sure, there was an element of a 'new wine in old bottles' character to these and similar efforts. But then such a character was far from undesirable; if behavioral geographers could breathe new life into old geographical concerns, then so much the better. This was to be an evolution, albeit a rapid one, and not necessarily a revolution.
