Let's discuss the concept of indigenous populations. This term is frequently used in various papers. And even more frequently on general public discussion boards. But what is left from this concept after the genetic revolution.
Here an example. There is little doubt that Australian Aborigenes can claim at last 30.000 year presence there. But can an individual Aborigene feel himself indigenous if researchers have found that at last 56% ( in some cases more than 70%) of male lineages and 22% of female lineages have recent Eurasian origin. Mostly European. Now You can say this is recent colonial event. But still the change is there and it is irreversible.
Then let's see the Basque case. Practically all their mitoDNA is local Neolithic but more than 75% of their male lineages are from Steppe. And they have more than 25% of Steppe ancestry. So can we use the term indigenous for their genetics. I don't think so. Or should we use it solely for linguistics. But even there things are not simple because Basque language has large number of IE words.
Maybe we should use this concept in high mountains like Caucasus. At last three different samples show that pre-LGM West Caucasus was very different from post-LGM CHG. CHG is more connected to Iran_Neo. While pre LGM West Caucasus was more connected to Anatolian farmers and WHG ( ironically even before WHG existed ). While modern West Caucasian are once more shifted toward Anatolia compared to CHG. This shift almost certainly occured with Neolithic Farmers.
So what You think. How should we define an indigenous population. By language or by genetics. By autosomes or by Y dna. If by genetics then what to do with old major shifts. From what year to count the start of indigenousity.
PS The irony of the situation is that a long term isolated pop like Aborigenes do have less native Y dna today than let's say Armenians who have a dynamic and rich history of contacts.