Since you brought up a comparison with modern Egypt, I will continue to use your example as an illustration of the concept (in a very loose sense). Do you remember when a few months before the revolution Mubarak visited the White House and the photograph was photoshopped by Ahram? They placed Mubarak ahead of Obama and all the others; their motive was to add to the 'stature' and 'status' of Mubarak by placing him ahead. Within the means available to the ancient sculptor using a 2 dimensional image, 'status' is expressed as physical stature: the royal figure is portrayed as much larger than his enemies or subordinates. That does not mean that he was actually, physically, a giant.
Take the Arabic language as an example, we say "el nas maqamat" denoting authority and social status, but the root of 'maqamat' is the same as 'qama' which literally means physical stature or height/size (the same applies to the English word 'stature'). Symbolism employed linguistically or artistically should not be interpreted literally or at face value.
Finally, the only way prove your hypothesis is to provide a giant human bone which can be tested for 'human' DNA
really? your comparison is funny ya akhi
perhaps, you didnt search alot into the depicted arts of ancient egyptians.
If a giant portrait was to make the king superior to others, or to be known as supreme figure, then all egyptian kings would to be drawn like this ...............You agree?
Why the variety in kings's portraits then?
The ancient egyptians recorded Some kings by giant art, but other kings were in the same size around them.
Let me bring PROOF
I actually have answered this question many times and over, all guys i discuss with they say Its was symbolic figures to express the royal kings and so..... No it was not.
First: what do you think of this image?
Giant servant and small servant in same picture
Kings beat guys in their size Vs giant kings beat smaller guys: