The Ecological Significance of the Totem
Susan-Zela Bissett (1998)

The totem or special animal is a little-understood feature of the aboriginal lifestyle, sometimes regarded as a superstitious ban on specified foods. I will argue in this article that the practice of assigning totemic animals (or plants) represents a complex and sustaining system of alliances between humans and the natural world. If the common claim that Australia’s indigenous people lived a “sustainable” lifestyle over extremely long periods has any truth, it owes much of its success to a range of ecological strategies, one of which is the totem system.
While differences in the type of geography, climate and vegetations required different strategies, in many parts of Australia it can be said that by the allocation of totems, major elements in the local ecosystem are provided with a human “advocate group”. Williams (2002) locates the totemic practices of the indigenous people of Guree (Fraser Island) in the sphere of active conservation:

“This attitude of conservation was demonstrated in one of the islanders’ most stringently observed customs – the totem system. Every person was given a totem of an animal or plant. This totem represented one’s other self and so was sacrosanct – no one could eat or damage his own totem while within the bounds of tribal lands. This may have protected a wide variety of species within the tribal areas.

Typically the group whose totem an animal or plant are restrained from eating that food except in exceptional circumstances, and expected to act in the best interests of its survival in such ways as refraining from cutting trees which may be home sites or food sources. The system works to retain balance between the tribe and its main sources of sustenance. Mollison (1988) remarks that tribes were
limited in range by brother trees, such as the ironbark, native cherry or cider gum. The tribal ecology is the ecology of that tree.
We have all heard the adage that traditional “owners” of country are in fact custodians and regard themselves as more “owned by” than “owning” their country. A similar attitude applies with the totemic entity. Rather than having pretensions to owning the totemic animal or plant, the person could be said to belong to the totemic species, in the sense of having special responsibilities for its well-being.
A man of, say, the koala totem may not hunt, kill or eat the koala. In addition, he is expected to have special insight into the koala with regard to its food requirements, mating and breeding habits, and so on. Another individual, from the kangaroo totem for example, is not bound by such expectations concerning the koala, but must respect them in regard to his own totemic animal. In this way, the major elements of the local ecosystem are provided with human allies who not only refrain from harming them, but will act in their favour not just in practical ways, but also spiritually, singing their songs and performing their ceremonies.
Given that a woman had to respect not only her own totem but also those of her mother and father, her husband and his family, the totemic system required extremely sophisticated understanding of the ecological interconnections between species. Totemic compatibility was weighted far more highly than individual preference or attraction. The senior custodians determine whether a proposed marriage is acceptable. Similarly, “law” people who have reached the highest levels of initiation, or knowledge of a particular species, may broaden its protection to prohibit hunting by all tribal members at critical times. Following their understanding of “carrying capacity” and seasonal conditions, the “law” person may place a total ban on hunting species perceived as vulnerable until conditions change, perhaps until enough rain has fallen/ or enough chicks have hatched. In this sense, we can catch a glimpse of the wisdom with which the initiated elders managed their resources, negotiating agreements not just human ends in mind. It appears they plainly saw what our leaders today do not, namely that human survival ultimately depends on those other, brother species with whom we co-exist.

About Susan-Zela

Susan-Zela is a third generation Australian of mixed Celtic and Asian descent. She has always felt a profound respect for indigenous cultures. She learned a little of indigenous culture from friends from Kabi, Butchulla, Waka Waka, Kamillaroi and Yuin peoples.

Contact:
Susan-Zela Bissett
3 Carrington Avenue
Gympie 4570
Ph 07 54829831
Mob 0439 130 537