Graphic chart displaying the heights of various giant discoveries in North America (authors supplied)

Top Ten Giant Discoveries in North America

(Read the article on one page)

The Iroquois, the Osage, the Tuscaroras, the Hurons, the Omahas, and many other North American Indians all speak of giant men who once lived and roamed in the territories of their forefathers. All over what is now the U.S. are traditions of these ancient giants. 1

Over 1000 accounts of seven-foot and taller skeletons have reportedly been unearthed from ancient burial sites over a two-hundred-year period in North America. Newspaper accounts, town and county histories, letters, scientific journals, diaries, photos and Smithsonian ethnology reports have carefully documented this. These skeletons have been reported from coast to coast with strange anatomic anomalies such as double rows of teeth, jawbones so large as to be fit over the face of the finder, and elongated skulls, documented in virtually every state. 

Figure 1: Map of giant reports in North America. Created by Cee Hall.

Figure 1: Map of giant reports in North America. Created by Cee Hall.

Smithsonian scientists identified at least 17 skeletons that stood at over seven feet in their annual reports, including one example that was 8 feet tall, and a skull with a 36-inch circumference reported from Anna, Illinois in the Smithsonian Annual Report of 1873, (an average human skull is about 20 inches in circumference). The Smithsonian Institution is mentioned dozens more times as the recipient of enormous skeletons from across the entire United States. The skeletons mentioned no longer seem to exist regardless of their actual size, and the remaining ones that were on display were removed and repatriated by NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). While the authors certainly support this law, it does present a moral and ethical conundrum in terms of trying to ascertain the proof everyone wants to see - physical evidence of giants.

Figure 2: Selection of news accounts featured in the book

Figure 2: Selection of news accounts featured in the book

In this unique Top Ten, we look at some examples of giant skeletons that were reported from across ancient North America (although we warn you now that Number 1 is so large, we admit it may not be authentic).

Our countdown begins at one of the most important mound sites in America, and quite possibly the world.

Figure 3: Various sized skulls found at Potomac Creek, Stafford County, Virginia, 1937.

Figure 3: Various sized skulls found at Potomac Creek, Stafford County, Virginia, 1937.


10. Serpent Mound, Ohio, 1890s –  7 ft tall skeleton

Figure 4: Serpent Mound survey by Squire and Davis.

Figure 4: Serpent Mound survey by Squire and Davis.

The Great Serpent Mound is a 1,370ft long prehistoric effigy mound located near Peebles that has been thoroughly researched by Ross Hamilton, who has written extensively about its mysteries and the giants discovered in the area. Recent radiocarbon analysis dates it to around 321 BC. This puts it in the realm of the Adena civilization who were present in the area at this time. In the 1890s, Professor Frederic Ward Putnam excavated some of the mounds next to Serpent Mound and found only 6ft tall skeletons, but a postcard showing one 7 feet in height was recently rediscovered by researcher Jeffrey Wilson. It may have been one of those excavated by Putnam, as he was the only person to dig at the site. Ross first published this in his book A Tradition of Giants , and it clearly states it was from Serpent Mound on the postcard, but there is still debate as to where this photo of a 7ft skeleton was actually taken. Notice that the legs are cut off at the knees, so is “7ft” what we actually see, or is it an estimation if he had his lower legs and feet attached? Could it have been more like 8 feet tall if the shins and feet were intact?

Figure 5: The 7 ft skeleton from Serpent Mound cut off at the knees. Courtesy of Jeffrey Wilson.

Figure 5: The 7 ft skeleton from Serpent Mound cut off at the knees. Courtesy of Jeffrey Wilson.

9. Cresap Mound, West Virginia, 1959 – 7ft 2in skeleton 

In 1959, Dr. Donald Dragoo, the curator for the Section of Man at the Carnegie Museum unearthed a 7 feet 2 inch skeleton during the complete excavation of the Cresap Mound in Northern West Virginia:

“This individual was of large proportions. When measured in the tomb his length was approximately 7.04 feet. All of the long bones were heavy.” 2

Figure 6: 7ft 2 inch skeleton with top part of skeleton burnt.

Figure 6: 7ft 2 inch skeleton with top part of skeleton burnt.

Figure 7: Ground Plan of Cresap Mound showing Clay floor level and below. The giant skeleton is on the middle right.

Figure 7: Ground Plan of Cresap Mound showing Clay floor level and below. The giant skeleton is on the middle right.

Dragoo published a photo of the actual skeleton in his book so there is no doubt it was authentic. Dragoo joins many other university-trained anthropologists and archaeologists who reported discovering skeletons over seven feet in length in burial mounds, often with anatomical anomalies.



No offense, but aren't most of those finds regarding 'giants' obvious fakes?

A strange comment. Unless you think that someone who's focused on studying the topic wouldn't have considered the possibility of fakes.

Obviously, he thinks that the evidence supports most of them not being fakes.

Well people choose to believe all sorts of gibberish. Von Daniken for one, totally delusional but still believes.

Or you are delusional.

Good News world this guy is not the king of knowing stuff in the universe.

What is Delusional is to look evidence right in the face and ignore or dismiss it.

Which is more iikely? 1. that during a period with a much smaller population in numbers as well as in average height there were enough people over 7 feet tall that we've been able to find at least 10 of their skeletons scattered in various places which just happened to be places that someone was digging up, or 2. that these are fakes?

Oh stop it. Just knock it off. There is nothing "strange" about that comment whatsoever. C'mon. Please dont make it sound as if there are not kooky people in the world. Dishonest people. Naive people. I'm not being critical of anyone specifically on this site nor am I accusing anyone of anything, I'm merely acknowledging that people as described above do exist and if one knows that then one would also know that there is nothing odd or "strange" about the comment for which you took issue with.

Read the book of Genesis chapter 6. It explains everything. Seems like they will be coming back too. Pray for forgiveness and repent. Ask Jesus into your life and heart and trust in him.

Ha, you really believe that sh*t don't you. Yeah the Giants are coming back, the signs are everywhere - please grow up, it's time to put away childish things. It really is amazing, even fascinating, that a technological super power like the USA can, in the 21st century, still produce and harbour such a large backward and primitive thinking population.

When I was a young boy in the late 50's - early 60's I visited a museum on Catalina Island. There were several giant skeletons there. I know for a fact that story is genuine. Apparently the skeletons were moved to UCLA? Like the Smithsonian the evidence was hidden.

I love the way they abuse terminology to meet their goals. Seven foot tall people are proof of giants. Um, aren't they simply proof of tall people? I suspect bs when I see this stuff. People can support themselves with 'high strangeness' or whatever if they can get enough viewers and use ad campaigns. I never click on an ad when I visit suspicious sites, don't want to feed the bs'ers.

You'll have all your answers soon enough.One only has to look and see how the govt. has hidden the facts carefully and purposely from you and left you ignorant,as your comment shows.

Oh please don't use as fact that you know giant don't exist because it is a belief not a fact by the way.

There is some good photography and report in well established journal and there was no photoshop program in 1850 that I know about. Even Some renowned scholar signed the report, which gives some credibility to them.

Pls Explain to me, what is so obvious in that regard? I would myself more likely use dubious, but, they cannot deny that the story is there and they are an interesting case. 

I have a question for the specialist, it is often said in those reports that the bone crumble after unearthing them, it is really convenient for a hoaxer but the reality, bone crumbles often after unearthing them ?

Sure sure, ignore the point i made.

People believe stupid stuff, look at religion.

Alex you should crawl back into you ignorant cave. There all sorts of ancient mysterious finds around the world from giants to agrological relics that for various reasons are suppressed by main stream academics.

Congress should send FBI to turn Smithsonian up and over, the truth is out there :)
Some of the past giant findings are fakes, no doubt, but others maybe not.
There's few reason for that and one obvious reason is that we humans are very different in sizes, be it height or girth.... If only a one percent of the ancient people findings are taller than 7 feet that's not a big news. If some of the findings are taller than 8 feet it's nothing unusual and so on. People were way shorter back then, at least so it seems and is documented, but surely there were giant-sized people also as there is today.
When we cross the 9 feet height there should be some questioning about authenticity. But as with other mammals, gigantism before the last ice age is nothing new. If some giant humans survived long after the last ice age that's no big surprise.
To rethink mammalian (humans too) gigantism before the last ice age one can do a search with short-faced bear and American cave lion.
Did those giants belong to totally unknown human species or totally a different species? That's the billion dollar question in my opinion.

Great write up Hugh.

Randombypasser & Axel,

Having personally helped Hugh and Jim and Ross Hamilton for the last 3 years compile 1,500 accounts for the TV show and their latest book (and consultant with half a dozen other authors & researchers) what we do find is that authentic records from field measurements from Smithsonian agents in the 1880's to 1890s, and later measurements by University Trained anthropologists and archaeologists into the 1920's to 1960's reference SOME skeletons surpassing 7 feet, sometimes approaching or exceeding 8 feet in their primary source documents (field journal notes, bulletins, and published excavation reports). These honored individuals tended to be buried towards the center or bottom of large earthern and stone mounds from American Indian cultures now identified as Adena and Hopewell, mostly in Ohio, W Virginia, Kentucky but also some later mound cultures down in the South East. We have reference to very tall chiefly individuals in early explorer accounts from 1500 to 1850 of paramount persons some times up to or exceeding 7 feet (Osage, Susquehannock, Karankawa etc etc). We may not think of 7 foot as a giant in the modern world, and the term is in indeed itself subjective, but 200 years ago when the average height of a man was 5 ft 6 or 5 ft 7, a human being much surpassing 6-1/2 feet was already a foot greater than the mean--Indeed anthropologists and Doctors already labled this threshold as "giant" in their text books well into the 20th century. Yes, some of the reports of giants from this age of sensational journalism were proven to be exaggerations and hoaxes, like the famous Cardiff giant -- but only some of them. Honestly, the majority of these finds are still mysteries, so further investigation is necessary. The results we have seen is that many of the primary source documents from which early newspapers and excavation reports do cite, can be tracked down, and on occasion, actual personal hand written documents, measurements of femurs etc, or even actual photographs can be found. As for physical remains, this requires academic and Tribal permission/ and or cooperation to do it right. It is a federal crime to galavant among the mounds and pull pumpkin sized crania out of the earth etc, when no physical remains can lawfully be presented. The field notes that we do have of occasional tall and super tall people are enough to convince me we had some extraordinary individuals and lineages in ancient times who were for all purposes "the giants" of their day. I agree, reports of skeletons far surpassing 9 feet and etc. tend to have lass credibility in my mind. There have been height estimates of individuals up to 11 feet in the scientific literature based on limb bone fragments, but I'd venture to say that 80% of the reports of "giants" in American and European mound cultures reported in old press accounts represented people who were said to measure between about 7 feet up to about 9 feet.

Excellent replies from the last 2 gents, or lady and gentleman.

All i implied in the first reply is that there is no way for something like this to be suppressed. Obviously it is possible for giants to have existed. Anything far back enough is lost through erosion etc. so there is no reason things could have happened.
Micah excellent write up and if you work in this sort of field, then thank you for the intel.

Last note though, eye witnesses, or personal accounts are the worst kind of evidence.

If you think that mainstream-science doesn't have an IDEOLOGY of it's own.
Then you are delusional.

Ideally science would be a non-dogmatic branch of human activity.

But it isn't. Trying to present ideas which go outside the mainstream will get you thrown out of academic circles.

They are only interested in such a progress which will not jeopardize their ideology.

Of course if there is something to be suppressed it can be done.

News around the world are suppressed on daily basis.

How couldn't they suppress dry bones? It's really really easy. Haven you got a tiny bit of imagination?

The first thing i even wrote here was "no offense", i seem to miss the point that set all of you off.

Obviously finds can be suppressed and obviously the academic world has their own view on history, which is most likely wrong. However making idiotic leaps from a very small part of the ancient world we find isn't any better.

I took von Daniken as an example because he's the epitome of idiocy and his connections through history are juvenile at best. That is my opinion anyway, you people don't have to take it as fact, relax.

Now take a leap with me and say ancient humans were helped by for instance aliens, to conclude something like that you need REAL evidence, not leaps. I can imagine the annoyance people have with official institutes etc, but really trying to stay away from wild leaps because we only find 0.0000001% of history nowadays is a good thing.

As I'm sure you know, Axel, there are some people in the world who WANT to be offended by something you say. They anticipate it. They look for it. They cant wait for it! They want you to know just how badly you offended them simply because your opinion doesn't align with theirs. If it did, theres would be validated. Some people NEED that. Validation, that is.

Sometimes all it takes to offend someone is to have an opinion that differs from theirs. They will take this difference as a personal attack and insult against there person because it makes them question the validity of their own opinions which effects their ego. This is very common amongst pathological narcissists. Of course I'm NOT implying anyone here is a p-narc, I'm just stating these traits are common amongst these personality types. It's a fact.

Glad to see you're not walking on eggshells for anyone. Be well.

CLICK THE LINK ABOVE and see yourself that giants exist, and not that far back either!!      

Nice video, where it come from, there is an history relate to it ?

The Bible speaks of Giants both before and after the flood. Over and over and over again the Bible is proven correct with archaeological and historical evidence.

Turning to the bible for proof of giants is as reliable as turning to Peter Pan for proof of fairies.

The Bible speaks of Giants both before and after the flood. Over and over and over again the Bible is proven correct with archaeological and historical evidence.

Dismissed. Anyone taking the bible or any religious book/texts to be historically accurate has no mind of his own.

Rationality and science make sure people believe things for which there is evidence. Just because some bum wrote stories down 300 years after the "so called stories* took place is no evidence. If anything its a very, very warped result of hundreds of years of story telling.

“…...Congress should send FBI to turn Smithsonian up and over…...”

ROFL…. so the biggest hucksters on the planet will send the biggest spies on the planet to investigate the biggest history thieves on the planet.   Oh I’ll be waiting for the outcome of that little dialogue.

Regarding any ‘biblical’ support. The bible is a book of fable, folklore, fiction, fairy tale and outright lie with only a smattering of actual history, which contradicts itself at every turn. Mainstream archaeology does not support THAT. At least MSarchaeology keeps there fictitious ‘linear advancement’ theory consistent. The bible could never pass the test of truth in a court of law – anywhere. Highly recommended reading:




I am a skeptic; however, there are many genetic and hormonal conditions which do cause abnormal growth in humans. These people usually die very young because our bodies genetic code was not made to cope with such an extreme. Another example we have is in dog breeds, generally speaking, the larger the dog, the shorter its life. I don't believe in any of that nephilim nonsense which some bandy about, like von Daniken and others of his ilk or even -- gasp -- aliens. The bones do harbour DNA which may answer some of the questions, however.



Anthropolgy lists 4 proto-humans - Gigantopithicus, Cro-Magnon, Pygmy, and Neanderthal. The Ica stones in Peru have drawings of humans living alongside the dinosaurs. The only real question is how old are these skeletons? Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate for large numbers so the giants existed and all we need consider is when did they exist?

I have a question for the specialist.

it is often said in those reports that the bones crumble after unearthing them.

it seem really convenient for a hoaxer but the reality, bone crumbles often after unearthing them ? 


Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Related Ancient Origins Articles

Ancient Places

Our Mission

At Ancient Origins, we believe that one of the most important fields of knowledge we can pursue as human beings is our beginnings. And while some people may seem content with the story as it stands, our view is that there exists countless mysteries, scientific anomalies and surprising artifacts that have yet to be discovered and explained.

The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.

We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.

By bringing together top experts and authors, this archaeology website explores lost civilizations, examines sacred writings, tours ancient places, investigates ancient discoveries and questions mysterious happenings. Our open community is dedicated to digging into the origins of our species on planet earth, and question wherever the discoveries might take us. We seek to retell the story of our beginnings. 

Ancient Image Galleries

View from the Castle Gate (Burgtor). (Public Domain)
Door surrounded by roots of Tetrameles nudiflora in the Khmer temple of Ta Phrom, Angkor temple complex, located today in Cambodia. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Cable car in the Xihai (West Sea) Grand Canyon (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Next article