A thought - Does a human being (biologically) = a human being (sociologically)?
By which I mean: If, as in this case, a human develops to biological adulthood, but sociological/mental development is stunted/not complete (as judged by a more or less “normal” human in, say, a tribal society, or any other example you care to name)…Are they “human” in the sense we usually associate to the term?
Or are they closer to the “less evolved” humans in the past?
And stuff and things…perhaps not getting my point across well.
Another thought: if I were suddenly picked up and plunked down in the middle of the jungle, I would consider myself very fortunate to encounter this feral woman.
In fact, my life might depend upon it, upon her survival skills.
She's "differently evolved".
It's very remarkable that she's survived over two decades- not just in the wilderness as we know it, but in the jungle
. Obviously, her sister- lost with her- died at some point, probably early on, considering the girl, nine at the time of her disappearance, has lost the ability to speak and also the habit of covering her nudity.
I imagine that if her sister was with her for long, she would've retained these two human traits.
I think she's been without any human contact for the past twenty years.
As an interesting side note, the famous French feral child, Victor of Aveyron, apparently raised by wolves in the woods outside Saint-Sernin-sur-Rance
, was first sighted by villagers in winter, merrily frolicking naked in the snow, literally rolling around in it, exhibiting no apparent discomfort or signs of hypothermia.
Discomfort/pain when exposed to extreme temperatures is apparently a learned, rather than an innate, trait, and the desire to cover one's nakedness against the weather is probably also not a primal instinct or a prehistoric trait, but one we picked up at some point after civilization had already been established.
Rochom P'ngieng's parents say that she "ripped off her clothes" before fleeing back to the jungle.
Apparently, she doesn't find them to be in any way useful to her survival.
It's just interesting to me because the popular archetype of a prehistoric human always has them wearing furs, or hides, or at least a loincloth or something.
It's clear to me just from what I know of modern-day feral individuals that they probably didn't.
There would've been no reason to.
edit: The other interesting thing about ferals- whether raised by animals or not- is that they tend to move like animals, and be most comfortable crouching or walking on all fours. They often exhibit little interest in walking upright, although they're certainly capable of it, and revert back to crouching and creeping as soon as they're permitted to.
It makes you wonder how "evolved" humans really are; devolution doesn't happen in one generation.
If not for social conditioning, perhaps none
of us would be doing much upright walking, at least not on a regular basis, as it's apparently not a human's natural state.