PDA

View Full Version : U152 percentages in US states based on 2000 Census ancestry data



MitchellSince1893
02-07-2021, 05:25 AM
In this thread I started this research
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22820-R-M269-clades-statistics-in-Anthrogenica&p=743694&viewfull=1#post743694

After my initial map, I found more detailed 2000 census data, which I've been working through since.
https://archive.org/details/Ancestry2000/page/n29/mode/2up

I had to make several assumptions and interpolations in the creation of this new map.

1. If the percentages were derived from the FTDNA database, based on prior identification of a 11% database bias in favor of non R1b haplogroups in England, I multiplied the U152 percentage by 1.11 to compensate for this bias.
2. “American” ancestry: The listing of “American” in 2000 census was found mostly in southern US states (at least 17% in Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky). In the FTDNA database, U152 was 4.52% of those that listed "US" as their ancestry. I multiplied this by x 1.11 = 5.02% U152. By comparison I got 5.48% for British ancestry which is probably where much of this "American" ancestry is from.
3. African American: According to this site 28.46% of African American ancestry is from European haplogroups. https://tracingafricanroots.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/locating-african-american-haplogroups-within-africa/ I used 28.46% x the American ancestry estimate of 5.02% which equaled 1.43% U152.
4. Belgians: I used Brabant Study where 9.5% of samples were U152
5. Canadians: FTDNA had 2.95% U152, x 1.11 bias compensation = 3.27% U152. Based on the English calculation below, this seemed too low. In the English calculation I ended up 1.26% higher than this so I multiplied Canadian 3.27% by 1.26 which gave 4.11% U152. This still may be too low, but I’m not sure how to get a better result. Fortunately, Canadian ancestry was one of the smallest groups I used, so the impact of a percentage error should be very minor.
6. Czech, Czechoslovakian, Slovak: were combined together and was weighted according to whether a US state was mostly Czech (4.5%) evenly Czech & Slovak (3.5%), mostly Slovak (2.5%). Data to arrive at these percentages was combination of Busby/Myres and FTDNA.
7. Danes: Used a combination of Busby and FTDNA which came out to 3.4% of Danes being U152.
8. Dutch: I used 2 public studies containing 2585 samples with 6.85% being U152.
9. English: I thought about breaking out English samples based on Albion’s Seed’s e.g. New England states would get the Busby/BritainsDNA U152 percentage for East & Southeast England etc. but it became too difficult/questionable as I had to come up with percentages for Western states. In the end I went with an across-the-board average. English were 4.83% U152 of total English samples. Multiplying it by 1.11 bias compensation takes it to 5.36%. This still seems too low in my opinion. The average for Busby/Myres English samples was 8.8% which seemed too high. The average of the 5 BritainsDNA regions was 6%. Taking the average of the 5-6 regions in Busby/Myres and BritainsDNA yielded 6.74% which seems more reasonable. Taking an average of FTDNA, Busby/Myres & BritainsDNA give 6.72%. So I went with 6.73% U152 for English.
10. French: As the bulk of French in the US was from Canada, I researched what part of France most of immigrants came from. It was North & NW France. Using available data for this area e.g. Busby/Myres ranged from 6-14%, I chose 10% U152 for the French.
11. Germans: Researched what parts of Germany immigrants came from. Based on available data at ports of departure for origin of passengers, and Busby/Myres regional data. I estimated roughly a 2/3rds were from southern and western Germany (13.5% U152) and 1/3 from eastern and northern Germany (4% U152), which came out to 10.27% U152 for the Germans.
12. Greeks: I took the average of Busby & Myres percentages which was 3.55%.
13. Hispanics: Based on 2000 census data, I broke each state’s Hispanic population into Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and other Hispanics. Based on FTDNA data I used 2.2% x 1.11 = 2.44% for Mexican and other Hispanic, 7.2% x 1.11 = 7.99% for Puerto Rican, and 6.8% x 1.11 = 7.22% for Cuban
14. Hungarians: I used the 3.5% U152 from Myres.
15. Irish: I used the average of the 3 Busby regions (2.2%) in the Republic of Ireland
16. Italians: The bulk of Italian immigrants were from the south with most of those from Sicily (83% of total). I estimated 8.5% U152 for Italian Americans based on the Boattini et al. (2013) study.
17. Native American: I used FTDNA’s 1.9% U152 x 1.11 = 2.1% U152
18. Norwegians: Used a combination of Busby (3.6%) and FTDNA 2.1% x 1.11 = 2.33%, which is 2.97% U152
19. Poles: I used the Busby’s U152 percentage (2.87%) and FTDNA 2.24% x 1.1. = 2.49%. I used 2.5% which was the combined average of all 3164 samples above.
20. Portuguese: Busby & Myres got 5.75% U152 for all samples. FTDNA is 2.38% U152 x 1.11 = 2.64%. I used 3.6% which was the combined average of all 1241 samples above.
21. Russians: Myres got 1.1% U152 for Central Russia. FTDNA is 0.65% x 1.11 = 0.73%. I used 0.75% which was the combined average of all 4856 samples above.
22. Scottish: I took the U152 average of BritainsDNA (average of 4% for all regions) and FTDNA (2.37% x 1.11 = 2.63%), which averaged to 3.32%
23. Scot-Irish were computed from Busby (1.4%) BritainsDNA (2%) and FTDNA (2.33% x 1.11 = 2.58%), which came out to 2.0%.
24. Swedes: Myres got 2.2% U152. FTDNA was 1.84% x 1.11 = 2.04%. I used 2.16% which was the combined average of all 3620 samples above.
25. Swiss: Myres got 18.29% U152 for all samples. FTDNA was 14.25% x 1.11 = 15.81%. I used 16.1% which was the combined average of all 1635 samples above.
26. Ukrainians: Myres & Busby combined got 0.6% U152 for all samples. FTDNA was 1.05% x 1.11 = 1.16%. I used 1.0% which was the combined average of all 1930 samples above.
27. Welsh: Both BritainsDNA and FTDNA x 1.11 yield 3.0% U152, so I used that.
28. British/United Kingdom ancestry (combination of English, Welsh, Scottish, N. Ireland as determined for each ancestry in the above calculations): The overall British U152 percentage was determined by the percentage of each British component in the census. Thus, 69.1% weighting was given to English U152 %, 13.8% to Scotch-Irish, 12.2% to Scottish, and 4.9% to Welsh; resulting in an overall 5.48% for British U152.
29. After I totaled all the above U152 percentages for each state, I had to divide it by percent of total ancestry reported. Some people reported multiple ancestry in the Census, which sometime lead to more than 100% total ancestry being reported. For example, in North Dakota there was a total population of 642,200 and total ancestry reported was 813,468, meaning total ancestry reported was 126.70% of the actual population. Before the adjustment, North Dakota U152 was 6.91%. After adjustment it was 5.46% U152.
30. I then put the adjusted U152 totals on a map, using natural breaks/clustering to group the states by color
a. Puerto Rico is the only 1 above 6%. (7.73% U152)
b. 2nd tier ranged from 5.78-5.95% U152. 5 states in this group including 3 New England states, Iowa & Wisconsin
c. 3rd tier ranged from 5.24-5.68% U152. 12 states in this group including 6 Central Plains states, 2 New England states, 4 Midwestern states
d. 4th tier ranged from 4.74-5.14% U152. 11 states in this group including 6 Mountain/Northwest states, 1 New England state, 2 Great Lakes states, and Kentucky & Louisiana
e. 5th tier ranged from 4.22-4.59% U152. 14 states in this group including 4 Southeastern states, 3 mid-Atlantic states, Illinois, Arizona, Arkansas Oklahoma, and Nevada.
f. 6th tier ranged from 3.67-4.05% U152. 7 states in this group including 3 deep south states, Maryland, Texas, California and New Mexico.
g. 7th tier was Hawaii with 1.88% U152

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b8/f7/8f/b8f78f45523a8e704a95f24f324e9335.png

As I was gathering the data I made multiple maps. While the percentages would change here and there, and the order of the states would jump around, the general pattern pretty much stayed the same. i.e. U152 was always highest in New England and North Central states, and lowest in Southwestern and Southern states (Louisiana being the exception due to it's French ancestry).

MitchellSince1893
02-07-2021, 06:46 PM
Following is just for fun.

Since it is Super bowl Sunday in the US...if you are U152 and don't have a team to pull for, go with the Kansas City Chiefs :)

Based on this map and the one above, it appears these are the top U152 NFL teams


1. Green Bay Packers
2. New England Patriots
3. Minnesota Vikings
4. Kansas City Chiefs
5. Indianapolis Colts
6. Cleveland Browns
7. Cincinnati Bengals
8. Pittsburg Steelers
9. Denver Broncos
10. Philadelphia Eagles
https://i.imgur.com/GpWYZT7.png

alchemist223
02-07-2021, 06:49 PM
Guess I’m in a tiny minority being a U152 from California :)

MitchellSince1893
02-07-2021, 06:55 PM
Guess I’m in a tiny minority being a U152 from California :)

Actually in total numbers, there are more U152 in California than any other state. The map in first post is just based on overall percentages.
Here is what I got for U152 per state in 2000 census

California 634,201
New York 427,557
Texas 409,117
Florida 366,523
Pennsylvania 326,279
Ohio 303,820
Illinois 283,168
Michigan 248,763
New Jersey 187,915
North Carolina 177,092
Indiana 164,701
Georgia 160,692
Wisconsin 159,397
Massachusetts 155,245
Virginia 153,215
Missouri 150,971
Washington 139,815
Minnesota 126,435
Tennessee 125,370
Arizona 113,042
Colorado 109,943
Louisiana 108,221
Maryland 107,138
Kentucky 102,904
Connecticut 89,215
Alabama 88,570
Iowa 87,093
South Carolina 84,921
Oregon 82,366
Oklahoma 76,769
Kansas 73,763
Arkansas 58,274
Utah 55,460
Mississippi 52,242
West Virginia 50,558
Nebraska 48,083
Nevada 42,164
Maine 37,823
New Hampshire 35,702
New Mexico 35,092
Idaho 33,109
Rhode Island 28,380
Montana 23,782
South Dakota 21,425
Vermont 17,890
Delaware 17,800
North Dakota 17,517
Alaska 13,359
Wyoming 12,475
Hawaii 11,366



Out of a total 2000 US census population of 281,421,91, I got 6,445,915 U152 men in 2000 or about 7.5 million today.

Interestingly, 4.58% U152 for the US via my analysis tells me I might not be too far off; as 4.52% of samples that list the USA as country of paternal origin in the FTDNA haplotree are U152 (276 out of 6108).

alejandromb92
02-07-2021, 08:04 PM
Interesting! Nice job.

tjspringfield
02-16-2021, 03:34 AM
Super interesting. How does U152 stack up overall in the US and Europe in comparison to other Ydna haplogroups? Is U152 the least common of R1B?

MitchellSince1893
02-19-2021, 08:45 PM
Super interesting. How does U152 stack up overall in the US and Europe in comparison to other Ydna haplogroups? Is U152 the least common of R1B?
Of the Big 4 R1b, yes U152 is the least common

In the FTDNA database (which has a US testing bias), 6155 of all testers list US as the paternal origin.
1602 were L21 (26.1%)
900 were U106 (14.6%)
450 were DF27 (7.3%)
282 were U152 (4.6%)
61 were DF19 (1.0%)

Here is a map I did for R1b in Europe in November 2019
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&ll=41.04283710833869%2C6.2954531249999945&z=4&mid=11hkadkeXPzEqpZGaAE93hCflccAj_44u

Thread it's associated with is here
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11364-FTDNA-R1b-Project-Maps

MitchellSince1893
02-21-2021, 12:15 AM
Of the Big 4 R1b, yes U152 is the least common

In the FTDNA database (which has a US testing bias), 6155 of all testers list US as the paternal origin.
1602 were L21 (26.1%)
900 were U106 (14.6%)
450 were DF27 (7.3%)
282 were U152 (4.6%)
61 were DF19 (1.0%)

Here is a map I did for R1b in Europe in November 2019
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&ll=41.04283710833869%2C6.2954531249999945&z=4&mid=11hkadkeXPzEqpZGaAE93hCflccAj_44u

Thread it's associated with is here
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11364-FTDNA-R1b-Project-Maps

Other US haplogroups with over 1 % of total
E 6.3%
G 2.7%
I1 12.1%
I2 6,8%
J2 3.2%

So U152 would be the 6th largest.
1. L21
2. U106
3. I1
4. DF27
5. I2
6. U152

tjspringfield
02-21-2021, 08:04 AM
Other US haplogroup with over 1 % of total
E 6.3%
G 2.7%
I1 12.1%
I2 6,8%
J2 3.2%

So U152 would be the 6th largest.
1. L21
2. U106
3. I1
4. DF27
5. I2
6. U152

Interesting. U152 is not rare, although not as common as I thought. 23andMe certainly makes it seem more common.
Do you have any updates or information on minor subclades on why and who? Specifically A520 or R-BY3549? Or any of them for that matter. There's one example as far south as Greece and another in England.

MitchellSince1893
02-21-2021, 05:26 PM
Interesting. U152 is not rare, although not as common as I thought. 23andMe certainly makes it seem more common.
Do you have any updates or information on minor subclades on why and who? Specifically A520 or R-BY3549? Or any of them for that matter. There's one example as far south as Greece and another in England.

No but it’s easy to do this yourself by going to the FTDNA Haplotree and clicking on various country reports for haplogroups in question.