Patterns A to H in Fig. 54 appear in hemp cloth skirts.  These show the steps in the conventionalization of the human figure,[1] as explained by the weavers.  In the first four the forms are so realistic that they need no explanation, but E is more complicated.  Here two greatly conventionalized figures have been used, one erect, the other with head down.  The size of the head has been increased while the body is represented by a small diamond-shaped pattern with outstretched arms attached.  The legs and feet of both figures help to form a pattern similar to a head, except that it lacks the “hair” shown in the end designs. F resembles the preceding quite closely.  In it the central head-like pattern does not appear and the legs and feet of one figure help to form the head of the other.  This design has been doubled, thus necessitating some alteration of the figures at the points of union.  In G and H nearly all the realistic elements have vanished, yet certain resemblance to D and E can be discerned.

[1] One weaver insisted that this figure represents a frog, because of its webbed feet, but none of the others agreed with her.

FIG. 54A TO H. DESIGNS REPRESENTING THE HUMAN FORM.

We have already learned that the crocodile is held in great regard and in some sections there is evidence of its more or less sacred character.  Its importance in the minds of the people is well shown by the frequency with which it appears in their decorative designs.  Fig. 55_A_ shows one of these animals which has just eaten a man.  Both figures are so realistic that the intention of the weaver is apparent.  In B, D, E, and F, the animal is still realistic, but the man disappears, and in his place is a formless object or straight lines which are identified as “something eaten.”

FIG. 55A TO H. CROCODILE DESIGNS.

The pattern G is given as the next step in the conventionalization.  Here the legs, feet, and “something eaten” have assumed undue proportions, while nearly every trace of likeness has vanished.  This figure is multiplied five times to obtain the highly conventionalized form shown in H.

By referring to G it is possible to see how the complicated designs in I and J have been derived, although they bear little resemblance to the original crocodile form.

Fig. 56 was identified as a crocodile but was not regarded as a step in the conventionalization shown.  Many other figures such as 57 appear so closely related to the designs just described that it seems certain they must have had a common origin, yet this was denied by all the weavers, who insisted that such decorations were added only to make the garments pretty.

FIG. 56.  CROCODILE DESIGN.

FIG. 57.  DESIGN USED IN WEAVING.

Going from weaving to designs cut in wood, something of the same state of affairs is encountered.  Pattern a on the bamboo comb (Fig. 48) is identified as the crocodile, yet the very similar figures shown on a bamboo lime holder (Fig. 58) and on a wooden clothes-hanger (Fig. 59) are not so recognized.