The sequencing of Anzick-1 provides pretty clear (if imperfect) evidence that some Clovis populations were ancestral to a lot of modern indigenous Americans, since it's basal to most South American groups.
No, it's just a widely accepted term for descendents of the people who inhabited the Americas before European colonization. Their (long ago) ancestors are also our long ago ancestors in Africa.
The reason "indigenous" is used is mainly historical, but there aren't any better modern terms. "American Indian" is largely a US term and one a lot of people don't like. "Native American" has similar issues. "First nations" is mainly used by Canadians and doesn't encompass all the groups being discussed. "Indian" works, but "indigenous" has a lot less semantic baggage.
Comments
The sequencing of Anzick-1 provides pretty clear (if imperfect) evidence that some Clovis populations were ancestral to a lot of modern indigenous Americans, since it's basal to most South American groups.
Is using the term "indigenous" in reference to people living in the Americas before Columbus an implicit repudiation of the "Out of Africa" theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_moder...
No, it's just a widely accepted term for descendents of the people who inhabited the Americas before European colonization. Their (long ago) ancestors are also our long ago ancestors in Africa.
The reason "indigenous" is used is mainly historical, but there aren't any better modern terms. "American Indian" is largely a US term and one a lot of people don't like. "Native American" has similar issues. "First nations" is mainly used by Canadians and doesn't encompass all the groups being discussed. "Indian" works, but "indigenous" has a lot less semantic baggage.