[139] One weaver insisted that this figure represents a frog, because of its webbed feet, but none of the others agreed with her.
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. 55A 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."
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.