GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268800293
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] English genealogy
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:31:33 -0400
I picked this up at Wikipedia:
"The New England States were initially colonized by about 30,000 settlers
between 1620 and 1640, a period since referred to as 'The Great Migration.'
There was little additional immigration until the Irish influx of the 1840s and
'50s in the wake of the Great Potato Famine. The almost one million inhabitants
130 years later at the time of the Revolution were nearly all descended from the
original settlers, whose 3 percent annual natural growth rate caused a doubling
of population every 25 years. Their beliefs and ancestry were nearly all shared
and made them into what was probably the largest more-or-less homogeneous group
of settlers in America. Their continued high birth rate continued for at least a
century more, making the descendants of these New Englanders well represented in
nearly all states today. "
Is there enough here to calculate what "well represented" would be?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] English genealogy
> Forgive me for trying to put the number of Mayflower
> descendants into some
> perspective. If all a person's descendants of either sex
> each generation
> are counted, we should probably expect the number today
> claiming descent
> from 100 Mayflower folks to be staggering.
> Under zero population growth (which certainly is a gross
> underestimate for
> the vigorously growing America), the average person's
> descendants of both
> sexes double each generation. So an average Mayflower person in 12
> generations would have 4000 descendants. 50 Mayflower folk
> would have
> 200,000 descendants. This is very crude because of the usual reasons
> brought up in the "ancestors exceeding the world population"
> problem, etc.
> But given the population growth rate of America, even after
> pulling out
> growth rate due to new arrivals, millions today having a
> Mayflower ancestor
> does not surprise me, even given the death rate that first winter at
> Maybe someone will do this calculation more carefully?