Gigantopithecus
Name:
Gigantopithecus
(Giant ape).
Phonetic: Jy-gan-toe-pif-e-kus.
Named By: Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald -
1935.
Classification: Chordata, Mammalia, Primates,
Hominidae, Ponginae.
Species: G. blacki (type).
Diet: Herbivore.
Size: Roughly estimated to be up to 3 meters
tall.
.
Known locations: China, India and Vietnam.
Time period: Messinian of the Miocene through to
Late Ionian of the Pleistocene. Possibly slightly later.
Fossil representation: Hundreds of teeth and a few
mandibles (lower jaws).
Discovery and species
During
1935 the
palaeontologist Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald visited a Chinese
apothecary shop in Hong Kong and discovered an unusually large molar,
a tooth similar to the large flat ones that you have towards the back
of your mouth. Fossils like this are often found in Traditional
Chinese medicine where they are called ‘dragon bones’, but this
tooth did not come from a mythical creature, instead study revealed
it to have come from some kind of gigantic ape. When describing it as
a new genus the choice of name was obvious and so von Koenigswald
created Gigantopithecus with literally translates
as ‘giant ape’.
Since
this first discovery
over one thousand three hundred teeth have been tracked down, many of
them from the Traditional Chinese medicine market. More excitingly
however are the discoveries of some lower jaws which have allowed
palaeontologists and primatologists to infer a little about what
Gigantopithecus might have been like.
Unfortunately this is where the
clues stop as so far no other parts of the skeleton or even the skull
have so far been found.
The
most famous species of
Gigantopithecus known is G. blacki
which seems to be the largest of
the known species. This was the first species to be named and so far
is known from caves in South East Asia and is represented by both
teeth and mandibles. Another species is G. giganteus,
but this is
something of a misnomer as it actually seems to be only half the size
of G. blacki. This species is however known
from India, and the
size difference might be down to a different climatic adaptation,
even though there is evidence to suggest that it also inhabited parts
of China. Another Indian species is G. bilaspurensis
and this
species really stands out from the other two because its remains are
dated to as far back as the late Miocene period, extending the
temporal range of Gigantopithecus for many
millions of years between
the Miocene and Pleistocene periods.
What was Gigantopithecus
like?
Because
no complete or even
partially complete skeleton is known, reconstructions of
Gigantopithecus are highly speculative, but the
parts which are known
do reveal a surprising amount of information. Reconstructions of
Gigantopithecus are often of a gorilla like ape
because gorillas are
the largest apes that we know today, but the lower jaw structure is
actually much closer to that of an orangutan. This is why
Gigantopithecus is classified within the Ponginae
group of apes along
with orangutans (which are actually classed under the genus
Pongo). It is also for this reason that what are
considered to be
more accurate reconstructions give Gigantopithecus
a more
orangutan-like appearance.
Reconstructions
of
Gigantopithecus are usually of an individual in an
erect upright
posture so that the full size of this ape can be more easily
appreciated, for example, when you see a bear on all four legs it
looks big, but when it stands on its back two it gives the impression
of a considerably larger animal. However the wider consensus amongst
researchers is that if Gigantopithecus was like
other known great apes
(a theory that is supported by current fossil evidence) it would
have mostly supported its body with all four limbs in a hunched
quadrupedal posture, although bipedal locomotion would be
occasionally observed, particularly as part of displays or moving
short distances. Assuming that the rest of the skeleton of
Gigantopithecus resembled the skeletons of other
great apes, then it
simply would not have the skeletal posture or musculature to maintain a
bipedal stance without additional effort.
There
is one theory that was
proposed by the anthropologist Grover Krantz that was made to support
the idea that Gigantopithecus was primarily
bipedal. Krantz noted how
the known jaws of Gigantopithecus widen towards the
rear and proposed
that this widening occurred to allow for the housing of a trachea
(the ‘windpipe’ that connects the lungs to the mouth opening)
when the skull was placed directly in top of the head like a human and
not carried forward like a great ape. It’s possible however that
Krantz’s thinking was skewed by his desire to connect Gigantopithecus
with ‘bigfoot’ stories from North America when he tried to prove
this supposedly bipedal creature’s existence. Most animal jaws widen
as they approach the point of articulation regardless of how the head
orients to the neck, which is why the vast majority of researchers
consider this to be a flawed theory at best.
It
is actually a lot easier
to infer what kind of things that Gigantopithecus
ate and analysis so
far reveals a picture of it being a strict herbivore. Like with
orangutans the lower jaws of Gigantopithecus are
very deep and robust
which hints that they are built for strength in chewing tough fibrous
plants. The molars of the teeth are also low crowned with very thick
enamel, yet also show excessive wear, all further signs of a
browser of tough vegetation.
Further
in depth analysis of
phytoliths (silica deposits from plant cells) has revealed that
dietary staple of Gigantopithecus was likely
bamboo, a very common
plant in areas where Gigantopithecus fossils are
known from.
Additionally there also seems to be the remains of fruits such as figs
associated with Gigantopithecus fossils suggesting
that this ape also
ate fruits when it was able to find them. This might also explain
occurrences of cavities in Gigantopithecus teeth
which could have been
caused by acidic fruit juices wearing away the tooth enamel. Granted
this is a slow process, but a diet that incorporated a regular intake
of fruit would allow for the teeth to come into near constant contact
with these juices.
Further
support for bamboo
being one of the main foodstuffs that Gigantopithecus
relied upon
actually comes from deformities in some of the Gigantopithecus
fossils. These deformities are most likely caused by malnutrition,
an inability of the individual to gather the minimum necessary food to
maintain a healthy body. Bamboo forests that can cover vast areas of
landscape will periodically go through what is termed a mass ‘die
off’ every few decades. Although the exact timing of this die off
is hard to predict with certainty as the time between occurrences can
vary considerably, it can be relied upon to happen and when it does
it causes a mass shortage of available food for the animals that live
on bamboo, today an occurrence most commonly mentioned in studies of
wild panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). As large
apes it’s presumed
that even in the wild that Gigantopithecus would
have lived for at
least several decades so it is very likely that they would live to see
at least one bamboo die off which resulted in the deformities.
Why did Gigantopithecus
go
extinct?
Palaeontologists
will tell
you that what caused an animal to go extinct is probably the most
difficult question to answer. Sometimes you can tie in the
disappearance of an animal to an event such as an asteroid hitting the
planet, or the arrival of a new species in an ecosystem, but there
does not seem to be any one event that could help palaeontologists to
get an idea why Gigantopithecus disappeared.
Quite often early humans
get the blame for wiping out the worlds megafauna during the
Pleistocene but this doesn’t seem to be the case for Gigantopithecus.
Around eight hundred thousand years ago Homo erectus
arrived in south
East Asia, but Gigantopithecus does not disappear
from fossil
deposits until three hundred thousand years ago, something which
reveals that both Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus
co-existed for some
five hundred thousand years.
Habitat
loss could be a
better answer, but there is currently not a lot of evidence to
support this beyond the regular die offs that are occasionally
observed. Unless die offs began occurring with greater frequency over
the course of several hundred or several thousands of years, this
might not be enough to explain the disappearance. Another and often
used fall back theory is that of the emergence of a new strain of
disease that proved particularly lethal to Gigantopithecus.
This
could have been further exacerbated by a small population that had a
limited gene pool that resulted in less genetic diversity for a few to
have been resistant. Counter to this idea of course is the naming of
three separate species that would have been genetically different
enough to have different forms, so unless a disease was particularly
virulent this idea is not all that likely either.
A
fairer approach is not to
look for just one unique cause in the extinction of Gigantopithecus
(or any animal for that matter). A number of small things are more
likely to affect the population numbers of a species and together they
can unify to be just as devastating as a single freak event. For
example, the arrival of Homo erectus did not have
an immediate effect
upon Gigantopithecus, but their presence in the
ecosystem meant that
there was less food and other resources like sheltered areas to go
around other animals. When food became periodically scarce this would
have caused greater competition between the species for what little
food was left pushing those that could not compete as well closer to
the brink of extinction.
For
Gigantopithecus this
competition would come from many other kinds of creatures that ate
the same food as it did and when these animals finished what little was
left of the remaining food, Gigantopithecus would
end up starving.
This is also where the large size of Gigantopithecus
would have
significantly counted against it because such a large body would need
significantly more food in order to get the minimum level of calories
to survive. Remember, what little fossil evidence we currently have
does suggest that malnutrition was a real problem for these apes.
This is of course all theory, no one person can yet say for certain
what happened, but with this in mind extinction could have either
been a gradual event where population numbers reduced to the point
where the species could no longer be maintained, or that the
population grew weaker and smaller to be finished off by a final event
such as disease or a significantly bad upset to the ecosystem that
sorted itself out after Gigantopithecus vanished.
Despite the lack of
fossils in any deposits more recent than three hundred thousand years
ago however, there remains a few people who are vocal about their
belief that Gigantopithecus is still alive.
Is Gigantopithecus
still alive?
The
chances are that a lot of
people reading this article found it either from a link from another
website or doing a web search about the yeti, bigfoot or sasquatch
and it’s supposed connection with Gigantopithecus
in cryptozoology.
Well this connection is very controversial and most,
palaeontologists, anthropologists, primatologists and even many
Bigfoot researchers consider it unlikely to impossible. Supporters of
the idea began to make the connection not long after Gigantopithecus
was described but first a little history upon just what these other
creatures are supposed to be.
Across
Asia and North America
there are many stories about giant apes that are described either as
human-like apes or ape-like humans that are much bigger than people are
today with heights being estimated to be anything from around two to
two and a half meters, or bigger depending upon the witness. These
creatures occasionally feature in folk stories passed down from
generation to generation and the creatures in them have almost as many
names as there are variations of the stories from Yeti to Bigfoot to
sasquatch to grassman, the list goes on. Many of these stories are
now in the public consciousness and today there have been countless
sightings by eyewitnesses, photographs and plaster casts of
footprints, possible hair samples, sound recordings to most famous
of all the Patterson-Gimlin film that supposedly shows a Bigfoot
walking away from a video camera.
The
problem with the above
body of evidence is that it is not enough to convince ardent sceptics.
Eyewitnesses will sometimes be accused of misidentifying something
else or rather more unkindly just making things up. Footprints and
sound recordings also get labelled as being fake or misidentified
because no one was around to see who or what made them. Hair samples
are usually deemed inconclusive as well and the Patterson-Gimlin film
is usually accused of being a guy in a suit because the creature walks
like a man and not an ape.
Because
this body of evidence
cannot conclusively prove one way or the other that bigfoot-like
creatures are wandering around, some researchers have tried to ground
the stories in scientific fact. Apes are an obvious choice because
they are supposedly the most bigfoot-like creatures that are known
without doubt to exist. The main problem is that they are much
smaller than the creatures of legend, but when Gigantopithecus
entered the science of palaeontology many researchers immediately
started talking about how there was now fossil evidence to prove that
Bigfoots existed. As you can probably already appreciate this is a
very reckless way of proving the existence of a creature and when you
evaluate the Gigantopithecus fossil evidence and
combine that with
Bigfoot folklore the two just don’t go together.
Back
in the 1950’s
theories started to be pieced together that stories of Yeti and
Bigfoots were actually descriptions of encounters with relict
populations of Gigantopithecus that had survived by
isolation from the
changing world around them. Although not given much serious thought
at the time, some quite well known anthropologists such as Carleton
Coon and Grover Krantz (previously mentioned above) began to push
their minds to finding form to the idea. Krantz in particular is
known for dedicating a lot of serious study to proving the existence
of Bigfoot, even though initially he was sceptical of claims and
evidence. Krantz proposed that Gigantopithecus
had crossed over
Beringia (also known as the Bering Land Bridge) from upper Asia
into North America. Krantz also tried to formerly assign Bigfoot to
Gigantopithecus blacki in 1985 but was rejected
by the ICZN (the
body that governs the naming of animals) on the grounds that there
were no Bigfoot body parts that could be attributed to the existing G.
blacki remains. Krantz later tried again but this time
calling it a
new species, 'Gigantopithecus canadensis' (from
Canada), but
again this was rejected because the plaster casts that he was trying to
have treated as holotypes were not considered credible. As already
mentioned above, Krantz was an early proponent of Gigantopithecus
being bipedal, but the reasoning behind this was discredited on the
basis that the jaw features alone are not a distinguishable enough
feature to conclude that Gigantopithecus was a
purely bipedal animal.
This
is the most obvious
problem of the Gigantopithecus-bigfoot connection
theory because
Bigfoot is supposed to be a bipedal creature with feet similar to a
human (but of course a lot bigger) as well as a walking gait
similar to a human. The great apes however have very different feet
with elongated opposable big toes that help them to hold things with
their feet. Also while they can and sometimes do walk on two legs,
their preferred mode of locomotion is to walk on all fours.
Supporters of a Bigfoot lineage often say that you cannot claim that
Gigantopithecus was not bipedal because the feet
have never been
discovered. By this very logic however you cannot say that it was
either, but additional support against it comes from other known
parts. As mentioned above, the lower jaw of Gigantopithecus
is very
similar to that of an orangutan to the point that it is classed within
the same great ape family. This means that it is much more likely
that Gigantopithecus had the same kind of grasping
feet as an orangutan
rather than human-like feet. Not only would this make footprints
different to what have been called Bigfoot prints, these feet are not
that very well adapted for supporting the body of a creature during
bipedal walking, an important part of the reason why great apes will
most often walk on all fours.
Another
argument against a
Gigantopithecus-bigfoot lineage is the huge gap in
the fossil record
that marks the most recent Gigantopithecus fossils
and the present
day. Some supporters of the theory have made claims varying from no
one has bothered to look for Gigantopithecus in
other areas like North
America to even Gigantopithecus being discovered
but hidden away by
palaeontologists so that they don’t have to change their theories. To
begin with the first matter, palaeontologists cannot find fossils on
demand, discovering a fossil is unfortunately not that convenient.
The best that palaeontologists can do when looking for a certain kind
of animal is to look for a deposit that ticks the right boxes. For
example, if you want to search for Triassic age ichthyosaurs you
would first need to identify Triassic age rocks that were formed from a
marine environment (Shasta County of California, USA springs to
mind here). This does not guarantee a discovery, but it does
maximise your chances for finding something along the lines that you
are looking for.
For
Gigantopithecus you would
need Miocene to Pleistocene age formations, from areas that had dense
growths of bamboo during these times. These deposits are well known
from south East Asia where Gigantopithecus fossils
are currently only
known from, but North America has different deposits. These
deposits are still Miocene to Pleistocene in age, but the habitats
are more like grassy plains instead of the bamboo forests of Asia.
For the sake of argument, a Gigantopithecus
would have to radically
adapt in form and behaviour to move into this new environment to the
point where it would not be a Gigantopithecus
anymore.
The
idea that
palaeontologists deliberately hide fossils to protect their teaching is
basically laughable. Theories in palaeontology are changing all the
time with new discoveries and ideas that were standard teaching a few
decades ago already being challenged by new discoveries today.
Also a palaeontologist that discovered confirmed Bigfoot remains would
receive instant fame and recognition for the discovery, so nobody has
any reason to hide anything.
It
is the likelihood that
Gigantopithecus was almost certainly a great ape
similar to a large
orangutan that leads sceptics and many Bigfoot enthusiasts to the
conclusion that Gigantopithecus is not the
mysterious Bigfoot, Yeti
or whatever from legend. Should a Bigfoot ever actually be found
however and the eyewitness reports and footprints have all been
correct, then we’ll probably find that the creature is no more
related to Gigantopithecus than what humans are.
Further reading
- Gigantopithecus blacki von Koenigswald, A Giant
Fossil Hominid From
The Pleistocene of Southern China G. H. von Koenigswald -
Antrhopological papers of the American Museum of Natural History,
Volume 43: Part 4 - 1952.
- Gigantopithecus and Its Relationship to
Australopithecus - Department
of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 481 04 -
David W. Frayer.
- Dated Co-Occurrence of Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus
from Tham
Khuyen Cave, Vietnam. - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 93 (7): 3016–3020 - R. Ciochon, V. T.
Long, R. Larick, L. Gonz�lez, R. Gr�n, J. de Vos, C. Yonge, L. Taylor,
H. Yoshida & M. Reagan - 1996.
Journal of Physical Anthropology 135: 85–91 - A.J. Olejniczak, T.M.
Smith, W. Wang, R. Potts, R. Ciochon, O. Kullmer, F. Schrenk &
J.-J. Hublin - 2008.
- Comparative observations on the tooth root morphology of
Gigantopithecus blacki. - Journal of Human Evolution. 54 (2): 196–204.
- K. Kupczik & M. C. Dean - 2008.
- New fossil evidence and diet analysis of Gigantopithecus blacki and
its distribution and extinction in South China. - Quaternary
International. 286. - L. X. Zhao & L. Z. Zhang - 2013.
- Preservation assessments and carbon and oxygen isotopes analysis of
tooth enamel of Gigantopithecus blacki and
contemporary animals from
Sanhe Cave, Chongzuo, South China during the Early Pleistocene. -
Quaternary International. 354: 52–58. - Yating Qu, Changzhu Jin, Yingqi
Zhang, Yaowu Hu, Xue Shang, Changsui Wang - 2014.
- A 3-dimensional assessment of molar enamel thickness and distribution
pattern in Gigantopithecus blacki. - Quaternary
International. 354:
46–51. - R. T. Kono, Y. Zhang, C. Jin, M. Takai & G. Suwa -
2014.
- Chronological sequence of the early Pleistocene Gigantopithecus
faunas from cave sites in the Chongzuo, Zuojiang River area,South
China. - Quaternary International. 354: 4–14. - Changzhu Jin, Yuan
Wang, Chenglong Deng, Terry Harrison, Dagong Qin, Wenshi Pan, Yingqi
Zhang, Min Zhu, Yaling Yan - 2014.
- A new record of the saber-toothed cat Megantereon (Felidae,
Machairodontinae) from an Early Pleistocene Gigantopithecus
fauna,
Yanliang Cave, Fusui, Guangxi, South China. - Quaternary International.
354: 100–109. - M. Zhu, B. W. Schubert, J. Liu & S. C. Wallace
- 2014.
- New 400–320 ka Gigantopithecus blacki remains
from Hejiang Cave,
Chongzuo City, Guangxi, South China. - Quaternary International. 354:
35–45. - YingqiZhang, Changzhu Jin, Yanjun Cai, Reiko Kono, Wei Wang,
Yuan Wang, Min Zhu, Yaling Yan - 2014.
- Possible change in dental morphology in Gigantopithecus
blacki just
prior to its extinction: evidence from the upper premolar
enamel–dentine junction. - Journal of Human Evolution. 75: 166–171. -
Y. Zhang, R. T. Kono, C. Jin, W. Wang & T. Harrison - 2014.
- A fourth mandible and associated dental remains of Gigantopithecus
blacki from the Early Pleistocene Yanliang Cave, Fusui,
Guangxi, South
China. - Historical Biology. 28 (1–2): 95–104. - Zhang et al - 2015.
- Primata Besar di Jawa: Spesimen Baru Gigantopithecus
dari Semedo"
[Giant Primate of Java: A new Gigantopithecus
specimen from Semedo]. -
Berkala Arkeologi. 36 (2): 141–160. - Sofwan et al. - 2016.
- Flexibility of diet and habitat in Pleistocene South Asian mammals:
Implications for the fate of the giant fossil ape Gigantopithecus.
-
Quaternary International. 434. - H. Bocherens, F. Schrenk, Y.
Chaimanee, O. Kullmer, D. M�rike, D. Pushkina & J. -J. Jaeger -
2017.
- Gigantopithecus blacki: a giant ape from the
Pleistocene of Asia
revisited. - American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 162 (S63):
153–177. - Y. Zhang & T. Harrison - 2017.
- U-series and ESR/U-series dating of the Stegodon–Ailuropoda fauna at
Black Cave, Guangxi, southern China with implications for the timing of
the extinction of Gigantopithecus blacki. -
Quaternary International.
434: 65–74. - Qingfeng Shao, Yuan Wang, Pierre Voinchet, Min Zhu, Min
Lin, William Jack Rink, Changzhu, Jin, Jean-Jacques Bahain - 2017.
- Enamel proteome shows that Gigantopithecus was an
early diverging
pongine. - Nature. 576 (7786): 262–265. - Frido Welker, Jazm�n
Ramos-Madrigal, Martin Kuhlwilm, Wei Liao, Petra Gutenbrunner, Marc de
Manuel, Diana Samodova, Meaghan Mackie, Morten E. Allentoft, Anne-Marie
Bacon, Matthew J. Collins, J�rgen Cox, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Jesper V.
Olsen, Fabrice Demeter, Wei Wang, Tomas Marques-Bonet & Enrico
Cappellini - 2019.
Random favourites
 |
 |
 |
 |