The paper presents an attempt at problematizing of the “small indigenous peoples” concept, analyzes the entire range of the terms “small” and “indigenous” people interpretations that have developed in modern science, as well as raises the question of the nature and purpose of using these concepts in various scientific discourses and socio-political practices. The relevance of this issue statement is related to the fact that the actual existence of small-numbered peoples, the direction of their mental orientations, the degree and methods of protection of ethno-cultural identity, obvious and hidden possibilities of using these ethnic groups as actors for various political and economic purposes largely depend on the adequate or inadequate interpretation and legal application of this term. The purpose of the proposed study is to analyze the heuristic status and practice-oriented function of the terms “small-numbered” and “indigenous” peoples as scientific categories and concepts that inform sociopolitical reality. The methods of historiographic, terminological, conceptographic and comparative analysis, logical and analytical procedures for problematization and thematization of the terms “small” and “indigenous” peoples, historical-legal and historical-typological methods based on specific historical material allowed us to show the permanent migration of peoples to different regions of the world with their subsequent rooting in a new territory and interaction with previously arrived peoples, to reveal a number of contradictions in the interpretation of the question of, who should be considered as indigenous ethnic group in a particular territory. The analyzed data set indicates the obvious ambiguity and relativity of indigenous ideas about the primordial habitat of ethnic groups. A critical analysis of the use of the term “indigenous peoples” in modern sciences and legal documents has led to the conclusion that it does not meet the criteria of a scientific concept or category and is often associated with the mytho-construction of national histories. Its use as a tool of scientific knowledge and a navigator of socio-political or national orientations is not heuristically promising. In the context of the regulation of inter-ethnic relations, the term “indigenous peoples” is fraught with conflict-causing potential and may act as a dangerous weapon in the arsenal of radical forces and those to whom their actions are politically beneficial. The materials and conclusions of the study are of practical importance for the protection of adequate value and semantic orientations of small-numbered peoples, clarification of scientific and legal terminology in the field of interethnic relations, increasing the effectiveness of ethno-cultural, ethno-political and ethno-sociological expertise.