In the wake of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, believers in the literal truth of scriptures struggled to reconcile the new scientific understanding of prehistory with the biblical story of two progenitors in paradise and a global flood wiping out all but a pair of specimens of each animal species. In the 1870s, one uneducated man named George Smith got a job at the British Museum mainly because he was always hanging around there and scrutinizing the shards of clay tablets they displayed from Mesopotamia. After studying the artifacts for a decade, he one day deciphered an account of a deluge destroying humanity, all except for one man and his family. Smith leapt out of his chair and tore articles of his clothing off in his excitement, for he believed, and would convince others to believe, that he had just discovered evidence confirming the truth of the biblical flood story. What he had actually discovered was the world’s oldest known poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and for the rest of his life he would track down further shards, completing the text. What we can determine from the fact that this poem contained a flood tale similar to that of Genesis, along with the fact that many other cultures have produced comparable legends, is a worthy topic, but not the one we investigate today. In seeking to hold up the translated Epic of Gilgamesh as a primary source document proving the truth of the Bible from a literalist view, George Smith also promoted another fantastical claim made in the scriptures, for the ancient poem he had discovered was about a giant who stood seventeen feet tall. Long had it been believed by biblical scholars that in ancient prehistory, there had been a race of giants who inhabited the Earth, or that humans used to be much larger but had been growing smaller and smaller through the millennia, a process they called the degeneracy of the human race. The Bible gives us stories of mighty giants, Og and Goliath, whom it traces to the races of giants, the Rephaim and the Anakim. But more than this, it tells us of the origin of giants in Genesis 6, when it reveals that bene elohim, or “sons of god,” believed to be angels, came to the daughters of men and had children with them. These children, identified by biblical scholars as the original giants, were called the Nephilim in the original text. So while some might believe that mankind was created as a race of giants and has grown gradually more diminutive, such as French savant Mathieu Henrion, who in The Degeneration of the Human Race calculated that Adam was 128 feet tall and Eve 118 feet tall, others see a race of giant springing from an unholy union between fallen angels and human women, a kind of hybrid species that must have been destroyed by the flood. But of course, a poem, like Gilgamesh, whose historical accuracy cannot be confirmed, can never serve as evidence of the existence of such giants, whether they be early humans or angelic hybrid beings. The only scientific evidence for their existence would be bones, an osteological record of their existence. Many are the reports and repeated claims that such bones did exist and were at one time seen and even displayed, recorded by such ancient chroniclers and natural philosophers as Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Flavius Josephus, Plutarch, Philostratus, and Augustine, but words are not bones and can prove nothing but that stories of giants have long existed. Early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica reprinted a lecture delivered to the Academy of Science at Rouen in 1764 by one Claude-Nicolas Le Cat, a French science writer and surgeon, which lists dozens of enormous skeletons found throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Therefore, to many in the 19th century, the Epic of Gilgamesh’s depiction of an enormous protagonist was not fantastical. In the science literature and in newspapers of the day, as well as in sermons shouted from the pulpit, they were told that the evidence of ancient giants was endless, that it had been definitively proven. So they believed, without ever having seen gigantic human bones for themselves. And why hadn’t they seen them? Because they were nowhere to be found. If there were so many reports of colossal skeletons proving the existence giants, where are they? As one of my favorite musical groups, They Might Be Giants, once sang, “They might be giants/ They might be fake/ They might by lies/ They might be big, big, fake, fake lies…”

As we undertake this massive study (sorry, I might be making a lot of giant puns), we must start with what seems to me the root of all giant mythology, the Nephilim of Genesis. For biblical literalists, everything comes back to proving this throwaway line accurate. As mentioned, the verse in question, Chapter 6 verse 4, seems to indicate that Nephilim were the product of a union between angels and human women, but that is not the only interpretation. The words bene elohim, translated as “sons of god” and interpreted to mean angels, have alternative interpretations. Second century rabbis held that this verse described nobility interbreeding with commoners, while Augustine, writing in the 5th century, argued that it referred to intermarriage between the godly sons of Seth and the women of the lineage of Cain. But what is really interesting is the word Nephilim, which is the word usually translated as “giants.” There is no consensus of what this word means, and some versions of the scriptures just use the word Nephilim and make no attempt to translate it. Some argue that Nephilim is actually a form of the verb naphal, or “to fall,” making Nephilim more accurately a plural noun designating these people as “the fallen ones.” So why was it ever translated as giants? The only hint in this verse is that it says the Nephilim were “mighty men” and “men of renown.” We must look elsewhere in the Bible, where the word Nephilim is also found, to discover a link between Nephilim and giants. In Numbers chapter 13, verse 33, in the story of the 12 spies sent from among the Israelites to surveil the inhabitants of Canaan, we are introduced to the Anakim, the sons of Anak, who it says were descended from the Nephilim. Never mind how descendants of the Nephilim survived the Flood God sent to destroy them, I guess. Here, again, some versions of the Bible translate Nephilim as giant, but it is the description of the Anakim in Canaan that gives us the first hint of great size, as some spies reported that, compared to the Anakim, the Israelites were “like grasshoppers.” OK, but if we are to take this literally, considering a grasshopper maybe an inch high, compared to maybe an average five foot height among the Israelites, that means the Anakim must have been at least 300 feet tall. And if we are not to take this literally, if as seems more likely it was a matter of hyperbole, then it opens up the possibility that the spies were not talking about physical stature at all, but rather an indication of how powerful their foes seemed, perhaps in their fortifications or armaments. It is noteworthy that not all of the dispatched spies appear to have remarked on the Anakim being giants, which it would seem must be the first thing observed if they had been 300 feet tall, and their buildings large enough to house men of such height. Therefore, perhaps saying they felt like grasshoppers compared to them was simply another way of saying they appeared impressive, or “mighty,” as the earlier verse described the Nephilim. However, if we look at the preceding verses, we actually do see them mention the inhabitants of their promised land being “great in stature,” but hilariously, it is explicitly stated that this is a “bad report.” Verses 31-32 state: “But the men who had gone up with him replied, ‘We cannot go up against the people, for they are stronger than we are!’ So they gave the Israelites a bad report about the land that they had spied out: ‘The land we explored devours its inhabitants, and all the people we saw there are great in stature.’” It is then that they raise the legend of the Nephilim. Read with this context, it almost appears that the spies simply felt they were outmatched by the Canaanites and therefore tried to dissuade the Israelites from attacking them by lying about them being giants. Even a biblical literalist can take this meaning from the text.

*Return of the Spies*, 1860 woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld depicting the return of the 12 spies to the Israelites with their report of giants in Canaan.

The story of the 12 spies raises another possible rational explanation for all biblical giants, a viable alternative to the notion that any of these peoples were actually physically gargantuan to any preternatural degree. Instead, perhaps all of them were just what you might call giants among men, or men of renown, as the first verse mentioning Nephilim calls them. Just as the Canaanites whom the Israelite spies claimed were Anakim descendants of the Nephilim may have just been imposing figures that struck fear into their heart, perhaps that was case for many another supposed giant. We see Nimrod depicted in later generations as a giant, when the book of Genesis only calls him a mighty warrior. Then there is Og, a king said to be descended from the Rephaim, another group said to be connected to Anakim and Nephilim and thus to have been giants. Og is said to be a giant because the Bible describes his bed as being very large, but of course, a king might be expected to have a very large bed. So is being remembered as a giant simply one of the perks of being rich and powerful, or renowned as a great warrior or leader? That certainly seems to be the case with the notorious and mysterious Gog of Magog, corrupted to become two figures, Gog and Magog, later associated with Mongol horde and, due to the growth of fearful legends, becoming giants and even beasts. And this myth was translated by Geoffrey of Monmouth into a legend of a giant in Albion named Gogmagog. Reputation breeds legend, which invariably ascribes superhuman qualities to figures. Scholars now believe that Gilgamesh was indeed a real king, who perhaps inspired the writing of poems in which he was depicted as physically larger than he actually was. We see the same thing happen more recently, in America, with our tall tales. Any U.S. citizen is probably familiar with the legend of Paul Bunyan. Many are the roadside attraction carvings of this gigantic lumberjack and his equally massive pet blue ox. Some researchers have suggested that the oral tradition that started this tall tale had its origins in a real lumberjack. One suspect is a French-Canadian lumberjack named Fabian Fournier, nicknamed “Saginaw Joe,” while another is a little know soldier who fought in a Canadian rebellion named Paul Bon Jean. These claims remain unverified, but it illustrates well the idea that, even in more modern times, the exploits of a real person might end up blowing that figure up to outsized proportions.

It is harder to make such interpretations work with stories that explicitly mention a figure’s measurements, however. We may dismiss vague statements about stature and contrasts to insects, and we might disregard Gilgamesh’s seventeen-foot height, recorded as it is in an epic poem, which we expect to be fictionalized. But what are we to make of the character of Goliath in 1 Samuel chapter 17, verse 4, the Philistine, champion of a city called Gath, said to be a descendant of the Rephaim and described quite precisely as having a height of “six cubits and a span.” In today’s common measurements, that would make Goliath almost nine feet 9 inches tall, or nearly three meters. There is no getting around this precise measurement. In fact, it is the only specific height recorded in all of the Bible. Well, not so fast. As I said before, words are not bones that can be so easily measured. So we must examine further. In modern times, an archaeological site known as Tell es-Safi has been revealed to be the Philistine city of Gath from which originated Goliath, as well as numerous other giants, if the scriptures are to be believed on this account. Professor of Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies Jeffrey Chadwick, who is involved in excavations at the site, argues that such measurements actually varied from place to place in the ancient world, and that at Gath, a cubit would have been around 54 centimeters, or 1.77 feet, and a span, sometimes thought of as half a cubit, was actually reckoned there as being about 22 centimeters, or 0.72 feet. So by his reckoning, if Goliath was 6 cubits and a span by Gath metrics, that would have made him over eleven feet tall. However, some earlier versions of this Bible verse, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, have Goliath ringing in at only 4 cubits and a span, which would only be about 6 foot 9, or if Chadwick is correct, more like 7 foot 10. While the former is tall but not abnormal, by our standards today, the latter does seem pretty gigantic—but not unheard of. The tallest man on record, Robert Wadlow, measured nearly 9 feet in height! Still, Chadwick suggests that the 4 cubits and a span measurement may be suspect as well. He notes that the composer of 1 Samuel would not have had the chance to measure Goliath, so the measurement must have come from oral tradition. He further observes that a wall he has excavated in what was once Gath happens to measure exactly 4 cubits and a span wide, and he speculates that applying this exact measurement to Goliath may have been a way to indicate, metaphorically, how stout and impenetrable he was as their champion, likening him to their protective wall. That does little to explain the supposed great weight of Goliath’s armor, also mentioned in those verses, but it does make the exact measurements of the figure seem far less certain. And if you need further evidence that Gath was no city of giants, take the words of Professor Aren Maeir of the archaeology department of Bar-Ilan University, who was in charge of the Tell es-Safi dig site as he describes the excavation’s findings: “There are no skeletons of people who are taller than NBA centers.”

*David and Goliath*, a color lithograph by Osmar Schindler (c. 1888)

Another tale out of 2 Samuel, chapter 21, verse 20, tells us of yet another man from Gath of “stature,” said to have been descended from the Rephaim, and so typically translated as a “giant.” This figure lacks any specific height, but we are given the further interesting detail that he “had on every hand six fingers and on every foot six toes.” Interestingly, this story raises the idea of a giant as a kind of monster, or some sort of mutation with other differences from humans besides his great height. It leads one to think of the giants of Greek mythology, such as the Gigantes, described by Ovid as having a hundred arms and serpents for feet, or the Cyclopes with their single eyeballs. It leads one to wonder if there might be medical explanations for such tales. The giants of Greek myth may be more difficult to explain in this way, but Goliath and other biblical giants said to be from Gath might be explainable. For example, modern science and the annals of the Guinness Book of World Records tell us that, indeed, giants do exist, but not as the towering monstrosities of myth. Rather, they are unfortunate people who suffer from pituitary disorders that are passed hereditarily, causing conditions such as gigantism, or acromegaly when onset occurs during adulthood. These individuals suffer greatly from their conditions and do not tend to live to any advanced age. The tallest man on record, Robert Wadlow, who was eight foot eleven and over 400 pounds, passed away at 22 years old. As has been argued in at least one scholarly paper, the Bible’s mentioning of more than one supposed giant in Gath may suggest a family in the area whose member’s suffered from just such a familial pituitary disorder. The researchers further speculate that one member of said family may have had the genetic mutation polydactyly, the growth of extra fingers and toes. There are even known overgrowth syndromes, such as Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome, which result in facial and skeletal abnormalities and polydactyly, causing one to wonder if some ancient giant stories might not be accurate records of individuals living with physical disorders that sadly made them appear monstrous to others. If this were the case, it would have been rare then, as it is now, explaining why their remains tend to be elusive.

While we would expect the remains of such medically afflicted persons to be rare, ancient reports of the discoveries of such gigantic remains actually seem quite common, as previously stated. Herodotus talks of the discovery of a “coffin seven cubits in length,” or about 10 and a half feet, and the report that the body inside was equal in length. Plutarch talks of the discovery of “a coffin of a man of extraordinary size,” thought to be Theseus. Phlegon of Tralles, in his On Marvels, shares a report credited to Apollonius about the discovery of “a sepulchre of one hundred cubits in length, in which there was a skeleton of the same dimensions,” and further tells the tale of some Carthaginians digging up “two skeletons placed in coffins, one of which was twenty-three, and the other twenty-four cubits in length,” or between 34 and 36 feet. Perhaps my point is already becoming clear. These reports describe the dimensions of coffins or tombs, only sometimes with further assertions that the remains within were of the same length, when of course, a thing cannot fit within a container of the same length. Never mind the fact that these reports are all secondhand or even further removed, none having been observed by the persons writing about them, and thus are no better than legends, even if there is truth to them, there is a simpler explanation. Sir Jean Chardin, a travelling French scholar of the Near East, was among the first to observe that ancient peoples were known to make tombs and sarcophagi much larger than the bodies they contained. For the same reason, mummified remains often gave the further impression of great size when the remains within were not unusually large. It seems to have been a way to give a strong impression of the dead. Some such reports throughout history mention actual massive bones, though. For example, in Crete alone, there are reports of earthquakes and floods opening chasms and revealing skeletons between 50 and 69 feet in length, if we can trust standard modern cubit conversion. The question remains: Where are these skeletons? Do we actually have a bone to pick, so to speak?

While the massive bones and giant skeletons reportedly discovered in ancient times have long since been lost to history, we have a simple explanation for them derived from the supposed bones of giants that have been displayed in more modern times. In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, near the castle Chaumont in France, a series of huge bones were unearthed and thereafter exhibited in various cities throughout the country. According to their exhibitor, they were the bones of a Teutonic barbarian king, and according to a Jesuit priest, Jacques Tissot, who helped publicize their existence, their size proved the claims of giants in scriptures. These bones are kept today at the French National Museum of Natural History. Certain gargantuan bones discovered in the Americas even convinced one of the fathers of paleontology, Franciscan naturalist José Torrubia, that the legends of antediluvian giants must be true, prompting his composition of the influential work: La gigantologia Spagnola. In the American colonies of the 18th century, Puritan minister Cotton Mather, early adopter of smallpox inoculation practices and erstwhile instigator of witch hunts in New England, firmly believed that enormous bones unearthed in America definitively proved the existence of the Nephilim. In 1705, a discovery of huge fossilized molars and leg bones near Albany sent Mather into a tizzy, declaring to the world that proof of antediluvian giants had been discovered in the New World. There were already rumblings, however, from critics, that all these enormous bones, some of which were even being displayed in houses of worship, venerated as gifts from God to validate the beliefs of His faithful, were not actually giant human bones at all, but rather from large beasts. The skeleton of Teutobochus, the barbarian king exhibited throughout France, was exposed by a member of the Medical Faculty of Paris, Jean Riolan the Younger, as being the bones of something like an elephant, perhaps one of Hannibal’s, left behind during his campaigns in Gaul. Certainly, the anatomist Riolan could discern that its exhibitors had merely arranged the bones into a vaguely human form. And the famed naturalist Georges Cuvier was among the first to suggest that the large fossilized bones and teeth found in the Americas and promoted by Torrubia and Mather appeared to belong to the extinct mastodon. Think back to the many reports of dead sea serpents that I discussed in my series on the subject, and the so-called globsters that washed up on shores and were presumed to be sea monsters but were in fact whale carcasses or the remains of other known marine animals. As the science of paleontology has progressed, all such giant bones have been proven to be the remains of mastodons or other creatures. In fact, with the cartilage having decomposed away, the mammoth skull appears to have one large hole in the center, giving the impression of a single massive eyeball; thus it has been argued that mammoth bones were also the origin of the myth of Homer’s giant Cyclops.

An example of an elephant skull with a central nasal cavity that may have been mistaken for a single cyclopean eye.

Claims of the bones of giants being discovered continued throughout the 19th century, many of them said to have been dug out of Native American burial mounds in America, and I will discuss these in great detail in part two of this series. Let us conclude part one by examining the so-called Giant of Castelnau, which is really just a few bone fragments excavated from a Bronze Age cemetery near Montpellier, France, in 1890. The anthropologist who dug them up and afterward promoted them as evidence of a giant, was Georges Vacher de Lapouge. According to Lapouge, it was “unnecessary to note that these bones are undeniably human, despite their enormous size,” but it’s unclear how he determined that they were human and not, for example, those of a mammoth or some other creature. In the surviving sketch of the fragments, which is all we have to judge by, we see half a femur and a portion of what he claims is a tibia, but the length of neither could have been measured, broken as they are. For scale, they are sketched with a “normal” humerous recovered from the same site, which itself is fragmentary. It begs the question, why not depict them in comparison to intact bones of the same kind, his fragment of a femur next to a normal whole femur? It seems sketchy, if you’ll excuse the pun. Lapouge states, “The volumes of the bones were more than double the normal pieces to which they correspond,” which would tend to indicate they may not have been human, or at least not “undeniably” so. An anatomist from Montpellier reportedly examined them and called them “abnormal in dimension,” but perhaps they were only abnormal if one was insisting on seeing them as human. The same anatomist stated that they were “of morbid growth,” or “diseased.” Is this evidence that they were simply fragments of the skeleton of a person with some pituitary disorder or overgrowth syndrome that resulted in skeletal abnormalities? Another professor from University of Montpellier, according to The Popular Science News of Boston, August, 1890, determined the bones were “normal in every respect.” So what are we to believe? The bones were reportedly given over to the French Academy of Sciences, where they have since, apparently, disappeared. Perhaps this is because they were nothing more than unremarkable bone fragments that didn’t actually warrant much attention and thus were filed away and forgotten, but as we will see in part two of this series, such cases today tend to encourage baseless conspiracy theory.

No Bones About It! Part One: GIANTS in the "Old World"

Follow and Support Us!