“Indigenous” is the word, but they are usually called Aboriginies or Aboriginals.
It may not be widely known, but recently a few humans have been discovered with Y-chromosomes widely divergent from that of the previously-considered Y-chromosome Adam. The graphic in this page shows the revised Adam many many years (140,000 years?) earlier than the previously-considered Adam, though 99.99% or more of living male chromosomes still descend from the more recent Adam.
The revised Adam was so ancient that he may have been Homo heidelbergensis (or some other species) rather than H. sapiens, though this does not imply persistence of H. heidelbergensis.
Wikipedia hasn’t caught up with this, mentioning it but with most discussions left in an old inconsistent state. The ISOGG tree records its SNP’s, but discussion and date estimates are obsolete. Y-chromosome date estimates are very controversial, but I think there is growing consensus that the CT->C,D,E,F fanout started about 90,000 BP.
According to ISOGG, the Y-dna phylogeny is (A00 (A0 (A1* A1a (A1b* A1b1 (B CT))))). A1* represents the previous “Adam”, A00 and A0 are both recent discoveries along with the shared SNPs connecting BT to A1b.
If he’s that old, he might have to be* H. heidelbergensis* (or what is sometimes called “archaic Sapiens”). But, as I’m sure you know, our delineation of species over time in the past is somewhat arbitrary and nature doesn’t “care” where we draw that line. There is no reason our mtDNA or Y-chromosome ancestor has to be a member of our species. However it is more likely for us since we seem to have gone through a population bottleneck well after our species came into being.
I think you are misinterpreting this. The ME’s mother might have had several daughters, but only one of them (ME herself) would still have descendants today. If ME had only one daughter, then that daughter would be ME instead. To be ME, she would have had to have at least two daughters who still have descendants around today.
I have had trouble explaining all this even to other mathematicians. The point is that some lines of descent die out. My mother had one daughter who has one daughter who has no daughters (and is past reproducing) so her mitochondrial line is finished. So is my wife’s. The result is that the larger n is, the fewer woman in generation -n have a descendant today. Eventually, there is only one. Some day, there will be none. But this is not that day.
I think that’s a pretty good explanation.
My Y-chromosome line will likely die out, as my grandfather only had one boy, and my father only had one boy, and it doesn’t look like I’ll have any children.
Not quite. The other daughters might have lots of descendants today, but none that can trace directly through the female line. At some point, they get one of those pesky males in the line of descent who screw up that nice matrilineal mtDNA line.
So, I might trace some ancestry back to mtDNA Eve’s sister, but at some point that line goes through a male ancestor, and I lose her mtDNA.
What you’re talking about is an “Identical Ancestor”. This is described as someone from whom we all descend. And if you’re not an “Identical Ancestor”, you have not descendants today. But that line of descent might meander through the male and female line at different points in time.
Maybe not so anomalous; my great-great-grandfather had 37 children, and that was only 150 years ago.