<< The "somebody" who cared for
her could well have been the entire community (I'd rather not say "herd".
Community seems more neutral). The point is that some individual or some
group of individuals -- possibly the entire tribe -- was caring for her.
One individual was compassionate, or an entire group of individuals was
compassionate. The central point is the evidence of caring for a disabled
member of the group, which happens in either scenario.>>
Again, a number of assumptions. Why assume CARE by the community? Other
assumptions: she couldn't move, wasn't by a water source, etc.
But if you admit to the "community" idea, then it opens up another can of
worms. If she was by a water source, able to move, albeit painfully, had the
community fending off predators, etc. ... then you have another scenario, one
that looks more like ape than man.
There are just too many leaps and bounds invovled here to make any kind of
judgment about human like behavior.
Jim