With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Groundbreaking research maps cultural history

New research from North­eastern Uni­ver­sity has mapped the intel­lec­tual migra­tion net­work in North America and Europe over a 2,000-year span. The team of net­work sci­en­tists used the birth and death loca­tions of more than 150,000 intel­lec­tuals to map their mobility pat­terns in order to iden­tify the major cul­tural cen­ters on the two con­ti­nents over two millennia.

In the new paper, pub­lished Friday in the journal Sci­ence, the researchers found that var­ious cities have emerged at var­ious times in his­tory as cul­tural hubs as more intel­lec­tuals died in those cities than elsewhere—regardless of where they were born. For example, Rome was a major cul­tural hub until the late 18th cen­tury, at which point Paris took over the reins. Addi­tion­ally, the find­ings reveal that the dis­tance between the birth and death loca­tions of notable indi­vid­uals has not increased much over the span of eight centuries—a remark­able show­case of human mobility patterns—despite the fact that col­o­niza­tion and trans­porta­tion improve­ments have increased long-​​distance travel.

“By tracking the migra­tion of notable indi­vid­uals for over two mil­lennia, we could for the first time explore the boom and bust of the cul­tural cen­ters of the world,” said Albert-​​László Barabási, Robert Gray Dodge Pro­fessor of Net­work Sci­ence and director of Northeastern’sCenter for Com­plex Net­work Research. “The observed rapid changes offer a fas­ci­nating view of the tran­sience of intel­lec­tual supremacy.”

Above, a visu­al­iza­tion of North Amer­ican his­toric mobility, from 1620 to 2012 CE.


In their paper, Max­i­m­ilian Schich, the lead author and former vis­iting research sci­en­tist in the center, Barabási, and their co-​​authors pre­sented a variety of new find­ings. For example, despite the arts’ depen­dence on money, the cul­tural hubs that attracted the most intel­lec­tuals were not nec­es­sarily eco­nomic hubs.

In addi­tion, they found that by the 16th cen­tury, Europe appeared to be char­ac­ter­ized by two rad­i­cally dif­ferent cul­tural regimes: a “winner-​​takes-​​all” regime with coun­tries where an indi­vidual city attracts a sub­stan­tial and con­stant flow of intel­lec­tuals (i.e.: Paris, France) and a “fit-​​gets-​​richer” regime with cities within a fed­eral region (i.e.: Ger­many) com­peting with each other for their share of intel­lec­tuals, only being able to attract a frac­tion of that pop­u­la­tion in any given century.

The team also found that there is no such thing as an average cul­tural center or average attrac­tive­ness con­sis­tent among loca­tions. In fact, they scale and fluc­tuate heavily over time due to a variety of factors.

For example, while intel­lec­tuals have always flocked to New York City in great num­bers, it was an even bigger source of talent in the 1920s, being the birth­place of a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of indi­vid­uals in the data set.

Addi­tion­ally, loca­tions like Hol­ly­wood, the Alps, and the French Riv­iera, which have not pro­duced a large number of notable fig­ures, have become, at dif­ferent points in his­tory, major des­ti­na­tions for intel­lec­tuals, per­haps ini­tially emerging for rea­sons such as the location’s beauty or climate...

Read entire article at Press Release -- Northeastern University