The discovery of large jaw and skull fragments at the Sangiran site, near Central Java, Indonesia, has resulted in speculation that the bones are those of giants. These fragments were originally called Meganthropus, but are now usually classified as Homo erectus.
The large size of the Meganthropus fossils has prompted claims that they are the remains of giants. Here, for example, Meganthropus is said to have stood 2.75 meters tall and to have weighed roughly 340-450 kilograms (about 750-990 pounds). The biblical Goliath also stood about 2.75 meters tall.
Of these claims, one of the most popular holds the idea that Meganthropus was a giant, standing at 9 feet tall and 750 to 1000 pounds.
Despite the fact that fossils called Meganthropus have only been found in Indonesia, there are claims that Meganthropus also lived in Australia. The evidence for this is the presence of giant tools and modern day reports of sightings of the giant, specifically in Australia.
It doesn't stop there. Some Bigfoot researchers apparently also contend that Bigfoot is a modern Meganthropus.
Is there any basis in these estimates of great size? Could Meganthropus have been one the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4 or the sons of Anak described in Numbers 13:33? So would evidence gathered from the Bible and claims of giant stone tool and sightings around the world lead to the possibility that Meganthropus could've actually been a giant?
No. The fascination with Meganthropus as a giant is based on fantasy. The tooth and skull remains simply don't allow us to accurately estimate it's body size: without the evidence of post cranial skeletons, direct proof of the body size simply doesn't exist.
The size of the Meganthropus remains clearly impressed those that discovered and analyzed the fossils in the mid-20th century. Discovered in 1941 by von Koenigswald, the mandible of the Sangiran 6, Meganthropus, was initially believed by Franz Weidenreich to be traced back to giant apes. In a letter to Franz Weidenreich (quoted in this creationist discussion of Meganthropus), von Koenigswald wrote that his discovery was “so large that Pithecanthropus, Paranthropus, Peking Man and Heidelberg Man are elegant and dwarfish in comparison with it."
Intrigued, Weidenreich studied the mandible and wrote in his book of his observations: the jaw exceeds the height and thickness of any known fossil or recent anthropoids (Weidenreich, 52). Regarding the cranium capacity, studies of Meganthropus, show that it exceeds Sangiran 12 with a possible cranial capacity of 1059 cubic centimeters, the fossil record showing that the cranium capacity was approaching that of the modern human (1350 cubic centimeters) (source).
According to this site, von Koenigswald explained in and article inThe Spectator, that although the size comparison of the mandible in relation to the body would suggest that the body be 8 feet and 3 inches high, “this, naturally is pure fancy,” says Von Koenigswald, “any reliable calculation of [its] height must await the discovery of long bones” (The Spectator: Volume 197, Part 2).
Stanley Marion Garn Ph.D., human biologist, and former Professor of Anthropology at the College for Literature, Science and Arts and Professor of Nutrition at the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan, and Arthur B. Lewis D.D.S., whose research resulted in 71 publications covering dental morphology and changes in the cranial base and mandible, worked together to provide further information in the relationship between tooth size and body size.
Studying the relationship, Garn and Lewis came to the conclusion that there exists no intimate relationship between the two variables.
According to their calculations, the table shows that “the largest mandibular molar teeth belong to the South African forms, yet these Australopithecines were of short stature: … the largest as probably not far beyond the chimpanzee range. On the other hand, the smallest teeth belong to the Ohio whites, unquestionably the tallest group of the seven here considered” (Garn and Lewis, 1958:875).
The authors furthered their research not only to analyze species, but races and individuals as well. What they came to conclude is that there exists no correlation in indicating that tooth size predicts body size in recent man, in Homo, or in any related forms, currently. And so without any further evidence, the only possible explanation of the big-toothed form was simply that it was just a big-toothed form, according to Garn and Lewis. Although comparisons can be made based on profile-patterns, those stipulated similarities don't indicate that the large mandible holds any relation to us.
Although Peter Line, author of “‘Giants’ in the Land: An Assessment of Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus”, still believes that even without the crucial, physical evidence, the possibility of Meganthropus being a giant and existing, like other giants, albeit disproven many times, can still be plausible. He claims to believe it is premature to use the piece evidence as a conclusion to giant humans existing, but says evolutionists invent giant hominids from “teeth only” so creationists believing in giant humans “can be forgiven.”
Sure, maybe they “can be forgiven,” but that in no way provides direct support to the idea that Meganthropus was a human giant.
These blog posts were written by students in Forbidden Archaeology (Fall 2016)