Wikipedia suggests an average of 50,000 individuals for prehistoric humans in Africa. Population sizes after farming were so much larger, that I would expect the majority of my ancestors to be farmers.
Ah but your “ancestors” means every individual who contributed to your genetics. If “humans” existed for longer as hunter gatherers, even if there were far fewer of them, then far more generations of individuals contributing to your existence would have come from them.
Gwern points out below that since at a certain point we all share common ancestry, only ancestors who can be considered “different” can count as an “ancestor”.
Wikipedia suggests an average of 50,000 individuals for prehistoric humans in Africa. Population sizes after farming were so much larger, that I would expect the majority of my ancestors to be farmers.
Ah but your “ancestors” means every individual who contributed to your genetics. If “humans” existed for longer as hunter gatherers, even if there were far fewer of them, then far more generations of individuals contributing to your existence would have come from them.
Gwern points out below that since at a certain point we all share common ancestry, only ancestors who can be considered “different” can count as an “ancestor”.
I would expect that if we go back 1000 years, then all Eurasian farming humans alive at that point are your ancestors.
A sensible question would weight ancestors by amount of shared genes.
If you disagree with the question, why answer deep in the comments of one answer than at the top level?
By sensible, I don’t indicate disagreement, but a way of interpreting the question.