Not clear, and unlikely in Australia.

* https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high...

* https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-s...

This recent genetic based view replaces the "gut feeling" view akin to yours that was long pushed by Quadrant et al.

But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? They might all come from the same people that came to Australia first, but that doesn’t mean they are native to the place they currently live in. If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe, who gets the land now? And how do you settle that without some arbitrary statute of limitations?

	▲	defrost 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? Read article, chase up the papers, evidence says "no". The Tasmanians and the Noongars (Southern most to east, southern most to west) have genetically been in place a long time and had no one to replace. The article mentions "genetic diversity" between east, west, centre, north, south, etc - that comes from not mixing. "But surely..." <-- gut feelings? You should joinn Quadrant. > If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe Do you have any evidence of that? > who gets the land now? There's a wealth of material on Mabo, Land rights, Native title, et al that address all that - if you're generally curious it's there to read. eg: starting with, say https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case