Meganthropus or equivalents?

Adam Khor

Ok so the Megalodon thread faded into dormancy faster than I thought. I'm trying to start another discussion anyways... this time I ask you, what do you think of Meganthropus, the Homo erectus fossils said to belong to individuals almost three meters tall?
Does anyone know more about these (or other) giant hominins, or thinks such creatures existed at some point? If so, how do you think they would live, behave etc?

I think such creatures are perfectly plausible, but it seems the idea is not very well accepted in paleontological circles...

dlofnep

How many fossils were found to be estimated of such a height? We have had a few humans reach that height, and many today above 8 foot.

Adam Khor

dlofnep wrote: »

How many fossils were found to be estimated of such a height? We have had a few humans reach that height, and many today above 8 foot.

I wouldn´t say 8 foot is "normal", tho...

Kess73

The problem to date is the lack of good fossil finds, plus the fact that what has already been found has been far from conclusive and in a few of the finds there is a strong arguement that what was found was pretty much a hotch potch of fossils found together but that did not all belong to the one species/subspecies.


I think it is quite plausible that there could have been some type of eight foot primate or early human, but at the same time some of the size estimates to date are not based on any solid facts and in many cases are guesstimations based on using tooth size or jaw size to extrapolate a height or overall body size. As seen with shark, crocodilians etc., using that method to guage a potenial length/height/size can be very unreliable, and leaves an awful lot of room for error.

dlofnep

Adam Khor wrote: »

I wouldn´t say 8 foot is "normal", tho...

I never stated it was normal - but that if we find a fossil of extraordinary height, it may just be that. A member of a species which is unusually taller than their peers. Surely we'd have to collect a sample of varying fossils of the same species to get a better picture of the average height.

Rubecula

Such a thing could be very plausible and if it did exist in comparatively recent times could explain myths such as giant's or ogres in old stories. They would be rare though I expect.

I would keep an open mind about it myself until some more positive finds come to light.

dlofnep

Wasn't Homo heidelbergensis relatively tall? Average height was 6 foot, but some species over 7 foot were found.

Adam Khor

dlofnep wrote: »

I never stated it was normal - but that if we find a fossil of extraordinary height, it may just be that. A member of a species which is unusually taller than their peers. Surely we'd have to collect a sample of varying fossils of the same species to get a better picture of the average height.

Ok I get you now.

dlofnep wrote: »

Wasn't Homo heidelbergensis relatively tall? Average height was 6 foot, but some species over 7 foot were found.

I did not know. I think some Homo erectus also have been found that were taller than the average H. sapiens...

Galvasean

Aren't the Homo sapiens of today, on average, at the tallest they (we?) have ever been (thanks to better nutrition etc.)? Compared to the average sapiens at the time a 6 foot + heidelbergensis would have appeared somewhat monstrous.

steddyeddy

Science is not immune to fads or mood swings. Popularity does not dictate the reality in science. Its possible that a hominid that size exists but I would like to see more evidence.

dlofnep

Galvasean wrote: »

Aren't the Homo sapiens of today, on average, at the tallest they (we?) have ever been (thanks to better nutrition etc.)? Compared to the average sapiens at the time a 6 foot + heidelbergensis would have appeared somewhat monstrous.

I don't believe they lived at the same time.. Last traces of Heidelbergensis is 400,000 BC, modern humans are only 200,000 years old.

The average Heidelbergensis would look like a professional wrestler in terms of height, and muscular definition. So if we were alive - it would no doubt be an intimidating sight.

I think it's a very interesting species, and probably warrants a further look on my behalf.

Adam Khor

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't believe they lived at the same time.. Last traces of Heidelbergensis is 400,000 BC, modern humans are only 200,000 years old.

The average Heidelbergensis would look like a professional wrestler in terms of height, and muscular definition. So if we were alive - it would no doubt be an intimidating sight.

I think it's a very interesting species, and probably warrants a further look on my behalf.

Where do you guys get this info? I never see anything like this when I read about hominins (granted, I don´t read much about them)- they are all describes as if they were almost identical to each other.

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Where do you guys get this info? I never see anything like this when I read about hominins (granted, I don´t read much about them)- they are all describes as if they were almost identical to each other.

I learned all that stuff from Jeff Meldrum's books. I really reccomend them.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

I learned all that stuff from Jeff Meldrum's books. I really reccomend them.

Thanx! I'll check 'em out!

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Thanx! I'll check 'em out!

Even drop him an email Adam at meldd@isu.edu. He works at Idaho state. Say your doing research. Hes seen as the bigfoot expert and I have emailed him about both bigfoot topics and more orthodox palaeontology. He didnt always reply but when he did he was very helpful.

I at first was skeptical about the bigfoot thing and asked If it was real what is it? To which he replied

Until substantial evidence surfaces to the contrary, my null hypothesis remains the Gigagtopithecus connection, or possibly a robust australopith. The primitive ape adaptation would be frugivory-folivory. Gigantopithecus (and robust australopiths) exhibit masticatory adaptations for durophagy -- that is they evolved jaws and teeth permitting them to exploit and process tougher harder food items. Just as this initially allowed the robust australopiths to range into dryer woodland habitats, it likely permitted gigantopiths to range into temperate regions, where they practiced a more omnivorous diet

I then asked would their abiltiy to hide amongst humans indicate intelligence or some sort of culture and got this:

No, it really doesn't. Consider any number of rare and elusive animals that have much less smarts than a higher primate.

A true gent and a real scientist.

Adam Khor

Ok so, what about the Giant of Castelnau, whose remains were found in France and suggested to have belonged to a 3.5 meter tall Homo sapiens? It's even in Wikipedia although no one ever talks about it... It has also been said that similarly sized human remains have been found in other parts of France and in Georgia...

Unfortunately, with so much creationist nonsense around, its difficult to know where reality ends and myth starts :S

Galvasean

Forgive me for being skeptical, but I looked up that Wikipedia page and all the references are from the 1800s and are generally just old newspaper clips that do not go into great detail. It sounds like an old school hoax to me. Surely something so spectacular would have warranted some study in the last hundred years or so?

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Forgive me for being skeptical, but I looked up that Wikipedia page and all the references are from the 1800s and are generally just old newspaper clips that do not go into great detail. It sounds like an old school hoax to me. Surely something so spectacular would have warranted some study in the last hundred years or so?

Well, I mention this case because it seems to be one of the few that were never "debunked" so to speak... nowadays however one finds tons of sites with hoaxes about gigantic skeletons found all around the world, and often used as an argument to prove the existence of the nephilim or other creationist stuff.
That's why I said it's so difficult to separate reality from hoaxes and myths now. I don´t doubt giants like the one from Castelnau may have existed- but I wouldn´t be surprised if scientists ignored these findings due to them being mingled with all that nonsense that surrounds the subject...

Kess73

Weirdly enough if one goes through Norse mythology and Norse history, there is mention of a race of jotnar that existed thousands of years ago. This race was mentioned as living in high mountains and in very cold conditions which spawned the myth of the frost giants.


Now if one goes back six or seven thousands years from when these stories were being written/told, then we arrive at the Neolithic Age which is when the lads that Adam mentioned were meant to be wandering around the mountains of France.

Could the old Norse myths about frost giants be based on some degree of truth? Well it would not be the first time that mythology had come from something real.

Adam Khor

I've found more info about prehistoric giants. I'd like to know what you guys know about them, seeing as several of you know quite a bit about hominins.

Supossedly, there's at least one scientist, a certain Lee Berger from South Africa, who claims that some populations of Homo heidelbergensis (which has already been mentioned in this thread) were particularly large, routinely measuring 2.13 meters tall, perhaps more. He says that these guys went through a period of gigantism, at least in South Africa, about 350.000 to 400.000 years ago.

There's also a professor Vekua from Georgia who found remains of what he says are humans measuring between 2 and 3 meters tall; the expedition that found the remains was filmed and aired in a major Russian TV channel.

And finally, it seems that a HUGE skull was found in Montpellier, France, but I found little else about it