[642] Fletcher, op. cit., pp. 578 f.
[643] Ibid., p. 583. Among the Dakota, the totem is called Wakan. See Riggs and Dorsey, Dakota Grammar, Texts and Ethnol., in Contributions N. Amer. Ethn., 1893, p. 219.
[644] James's Account of Long's Expedition in the Rocky Mountains, I, p. 268. (Quoted by Dorsey, XIth Rep., p. 431, § 92.)
[645] We do not mean to say that in principle every representation of religious forces in an animal form is an index of former totemism. But when we are dealing with societies where totemism is still apparent, as is the case with the Dakota, it is quite natural to think that these conceptions are not foreign to it.
[646] See below, same book, ch. ix, § 4, pp. 285 ff.
[647] The first spelling is that of Spencer and Gillen; the second, that of Strehlow.
[648] Nat. Tr., p. 548, n. 1. It is true that Spencer and Gillen add: "The idea can be best expressed by saying that an Arungquiltha object is possessed of an evil spirit." But this free translation of Spencer and Gillen is their own unjustified interpretation. The idea of the arungquiltha in no way implies the existence of spiritual beings, as is shown by the context and Strehlow's definition.
[649] Die Aranda, II, p. 76, n.
[650] Under the name Boyl-ya (see Grey, Journal of Two Expeditions, II, pp. 337-338).
[651] See above, p. 42. Spencer and Gillen recognize this implicitly when they say that the arungquiltha is a "supernatural force." Cf. Hubert and Mauss, Théorie Générale de la Magie, in Année Sociol., VII, p. 119.