Fair enough, thanks!

While I don't like how the term is used vs it's actual definition I think you're probably spot on here.

Posting this here since /r/history seems to remove any post I make.

If a people considered indigenous to an area are found to have been predated by another culture does that remove the indigenous status of that people?

Obviously this could be a bit philosophical but I've always thought the term indigenous was sort of broad considering how long humans have been spreading out. I'm curious, is there only one group that can be considered indigenous to an area? If one is found that predates that group is it now the indigenous people? are they both considered indigenous?

Oxford dictionary defines it as:

>Indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

So by strict definition wouldn't Africa be the only real place we're indigenous to? Is it a slippery slope to assign indigenous people to an area knowing that likely other people existed there with no evidence found thus far?

I'd love to hear all opinions but I'm specifically interested in how that idea works with historians/anthropologists working in the field.