My point about “indigenous” was that really no one is indigenous except for people who are direct descendants of ancestors none of whom left Africa — and the number of such people might be zero (they would have to have no alleles of European derivation). There were apparently multiple migrations out of Africa over hundreds of thousands of years, and there were apparently multiple migrations into the Americas. Thus, no one is really “from” the Americas. On the other hand, it would be valid to say that some arrived before any other, but given the complex history of settlement of the Americas, we don’t actually know who that would be. We used to think the Clovis artifacts represented the first, but now we know it does not.

The same is true everywhere. For example, every inch of Europe has changed hands many times through countless wars, and chromosomal evidence indicates that those in Europe today are largely unrelated to those who were in Europe ten thousand years ago. Those who are there now are merely the latest to hold onto their spot before someone takes it away, which seems to be the one constant — that eventually someone will take it away. Israel is another example: it is sometimes claimed to be “home” to a people, but Israel sits right at the nexus of Africa and Asia, and so it was undoubtedly the conduit of most ex-African migrations. There are indeed artifacts of settlements there dating back more than twelve thousand years.

Even early tribes in the Americas warred with each other. No one is really “indigenous” to a locale. I hope that is not offensive — it is not meant to be.