Adaptations to local environments

The three major environmental zones of forest, tundra, and coast, and the transitions between them, establish the range of conditions to which the ways of life of the circumpolar peoples are adapted. These conditions are strikingly uniform across both northern North America and Eurasia, and this uniformity is matched by remarkable similarities in cultural adaptation throughout the circumpolar region. Broadly speaking, it is possible to class these adaptations into four kinds. The first is entirely confined within the forest and is based on the exploitation of its fairly diverse resources of land animals, birds, and fish. Local groups tend to be small and widely scattered, each exploiting a range of territory around a fixed, central location. The second kind of adaptation spans the transition between forest and tundra. It is characterized by a heavy, year-round dependence on herds of reindeer or caribou, whose annual migrations from the forest to the tundra in spring and from the tundra back to the forest in autumn are matched by the lengthy nomadic movements of the associated human groups—whether these be of hunters (as in North America), who aim to intercept the herds on their migrations, or of pastoralists (as in Eurasia), who are in continuous association with them. The third kind of adaptation, most common among Inuit groups, involves a seasonal movement in the reverse direction, between the hunting of sea mammals on the coast in winter and spring and the hunting of caribou and fishing on the inland tundra in summer and autumn. Fourth, typical of cultures of the northern Pacific coast is an exclusively maritime adaptation. People live year-round in relatively large, coastal settlements, hunting the rich resources of marine mammals from boats in summer and from the ice in winter.

Identification of Eastern and Western Arctic cultures

In northern North America the forest and forest-tundra modes of subsistence are practiced only by Native American (First Nation) peoples, while coastal and coastal-tundra adaptations are the exclusive preserve of the Inuit and of the Unangan (Aleut) of the northern Pacific islands. Native American cultures are thus essentially tied to the forest, whereas Inuit and Unangax cultures are entirely independent of the forest and tied rather to the coast. Conventionally, this contrast has been taken to mark the distinction between peoples of the subarctic and those of the Arctic. Thus in this article, of the Indigenous peoples of northern North America, only the Inuit and Unangan are considered to be Arctic, whereas the Native American groups are dealt with separately in the article American subarctic people. A division of this kind, however, cannot be applied to the Indigenous peoples of northern Eurasia. Apart from the Siberian Yupiit (Yupik), and perhaps some coastal Chukchi and Koryak inhabiting the northeastern tip of Siberia, there are no exclusively Arctic peoples in Eurasia. As among the Native Americans of the American subarctic, forest and forest-tundra adaptations predominate. For this reason, it has been necessary to treat the Eurasian Arctic and subarctic together as a single culture area. It should be noted, moreover, that the southern limits of this area are defined more by considerations of environmental adaptation than by culture per se. A number of Eurasian peoples are distributed over regions that span the transition between the taiga forest and the grassland steppe to the south. In such instances, only the forest-dwelling groups of these peoples will be considered here.

Apart from the absence of a cultural division corresponding to the environmental division between Arctic and subarctic, the north of the Old World is distinguished from that of the New in two major respects. The first lies in the domestication of the reindeer, the second in the history of settlement and European contact. The domestic reindeer is ubiquitous throughout Arctic and subarctic Eurasia (except the Pacific coast), whereas the North American caribou—which is virtually identical to the Eurasian wild reindeer—has never been domesticated. As a domestic animal, the reindeer is unusual both in that it has not been removed from its natural area of distribution and in its lack of deviation from the wild form. Originally employed within the hunting cultures of the forest, the eventual consequence of its adoption was the emergence among the peoples of the forest-tundra transition, from Lapland (Sápmi) to the Bering Strait, of a unique form of pastoralism. It also led to the disappearance of the wild reindeer from most of this territory, since the wild animals lost out in the competition for pasture. In the absence of the domestic deer, an equivalent form of pastoralism never developed spontaneously on the American continent. Attempts were made, at the end of the 19th century, to introduce reindeer herding into Alaska, using imported deer and herdsmen, but they were notoriously unsuccessful.

As regards the history of settlement and contact, the most obvious difference is that the Russian exploration of Siberia was virtually complete at a time when the European exploration of northern North America had hardly begun. Although both movements of exploration were dominated by the fur trade and although it had very similar consequences for Indigenous communities on both continents, the former belongs to the earlier history of the trade, the latter to its later phases. In the European subarctic the contrast is even more striking, for there is a history of contact between its Indigenous people, the Sami (Lapps), and Finnish and Scandinavian settlers that dates back almost 2,000 years and that is part of Indigenous cultural tradition. In the case of the Finns and the Sami, even the respective languages are closely related. This situation of continuous contact is a far cry from the encounter, in the North American Arctic, between Euro-Americans and Inuit, which brought together representatives of cultural worlds that, until that time, had had separate histories and had remained completely unaware of each other’s existence.

Relations with the encompassing nation-states

The eventual outcome of the history of contact on both continents, however, has been that Indigenous groups have come into the knowledge not only of the world of their colonizers but also of one another. For the first time, for example, Sami people came to know of the existence of Inuit, and vice versa, and to realize that as the Indigenous populations of their respective lands they share common problems, interests, and aspirations. This mutual awareness has been given political expression on an international level in the notion of the “Fourth World,” uniting all such Indigenous minorities encompassed within the boundaries of modern nation-states. Though the notion is intended to be of global application, its force has been felt above all in relation to the peoples of the north, in northwestern Europe and North America, all of whom presently find themselves citizens of Western liberal democracies and both beneficiaries and victims of the institutions of welfare capitalism that have been developed in these countries since World War II.

This points to one of the major criteria of the modern world for dividing the Indigenous peoples of the circumpolar region—namely, the artificially imposed geopolitical division between East and West. The Sami, as citizens of the Nordic countries, have been much more closely identified with their counterparts in North America than with the Indigenous minorities of Siberia, for the recent history of the latter group was for decades shaped by its incorporation within the overall political and administrative framework of the U.S.S.R. Yet in both East and West the lands traditionally occupied by Indigenous groups have turned out to contain reserves of raw materials and energy vital to the industrial growth and prosperity of the encompassing states as well as to be of crucial significance for their strategic defense. This has brought money and jobs to the north, as well as the trappings of large-scale and advanced technology. But the jobs are largely filled, and the technology operated, not by Indigenous people but by a skilled immigrant workforce. Indigenous people have become socially and economically marginalized in their own homelands.

It would be wrong, however, to conclude that the ways of life and livelihood of the Indigenous peoples of the circumpolar north are bound to become things of the past, as Indigenous people abandon their “traditional” occupations of hunting, trapping, fishing, and herding and take to “modern” ways. Though it is true that northern Indigenous people have been quick to adopt certain elements of modern technology and consumer hardware, from snowmobiles to radios and televisions, this is because their use, alongside more traditional items, makes good practical sense in the context of everyday life. And, although the purchase of these and other items necessarily involves them to an increasing extent in the workings of a money economy, this involvement represents an attempt to sustain, rather than to abandon, a valued form of livelihood. People are not forced to make an all-or-nothing choice between the paths of tradition and modernity. Far from attesting to a state of transitional disorientation, as though suspended between two worlds and two times, such creative blends of the old and the new show that, for the peoples of the north, life is an ongoing concern. It is only because of the Western tendency to equate Indigenous cultures with an exclusive adherence to tradition that they seem always to be on the point of disappearing.

Yet at the turn of the 21st century, more than the adoption of modern methods and machinery threatened the traditional cultures of Arctic peoples. As northern regions were increasingly explored for the presence of fossil fuels and, as the effects of climate change began to alter the landscape, the nomadic way of life itself began literally, as well as figuratively, to lose ground.