I know people might have a tendency to write off These Smithsonian documents without checking them out first. Please just briefly check them out and tell me they're bogus. I have a link to the original docs here, (but they're harder to read).
The full text of one doc here (Pertinent passages at pages 113 and 362; or 'Find'[Ctrl + F] “largest skeletons” and “bones of the toes”)
I know that there is a lot of seemingly similar stuff that is worthless, but these seem to me like legit Smithsonian docs.
There are a few things to consider on this topic. First is our inability to verify such reports today. Almost invariably, these accounts include phrases like "it crumbled to pieces," conveniently disposing of the evidence. In order to accept these statements then, we must assume that the measurements are being reported accurately and honestly. As a field, archaeology was still fairly young at the time these reports were being written and, on this topic in particular, the Moundbuilder Myth permeated American society throughout the 1800s (and until Cyrus Thomas 1894 report - the third report quoted on that page, which demonstrated that the ancestors of modern Native Americans were the builders of the various earthworks in the Mississippi, Ohio, etc., Valleys, the Moundbuilder Myth could be founded in Smithsonian publications). A notable variant of the myth over-emphasizes and exaggerates the estimated heights of individuals found in burials to depict the Moundbuilders as a distinct race of giants.
Now let's give these authors the benefit of the doubt. The third report, as I mentioned, comes from Cyrus Thomas, who put the final nail in the Moundbuilder Myths coffin. He estimates that the individual under discussion was perhaps 7.5 feet tall in life. The final line in the quoted paragraph is important: "This was the only burial in the mound." Depending on the time and place, burials in this fashion are the exception, not the rule, and those who are buried this way are, for one reason or another, exceptional. While it wouldn't guarantee success, having a tall, imposing figure definitely confers certain advantages whether on the battlefield or in the council house. As a famous historic example, there's Tuscaluza, one of the most politically and militarily powerful men in the 16th Century South. He's described as standing about foot-and-a-half taller than the Spanish he encountered and was likened to Antonico, the famously tall guard serving King Charles V. While they had Tascaluza captive, the Spanish had trouble finding a horse that could carry him. While riding one of de Soto's packhorses, his feet were said to only be mere inches from the ground. His son was described to be of similar height, though with a slimmer build.
So to a certain extent, the presence of notably tall individuals in burials is partially due to a selection bias. It's also due to a confirmation bias, because the vast majority of burials are of individuals of more average size. Exceptional tall individuals tend to attract more attention though. The individual estimated at 7.5 feet tall is, for example, one of the few burials given an estimated height in Thomas' work despite numerous ones being under discussion - its exceptional nature made it worth noting to Thomas.
What features are unusual? The Timucua Indians (the tribe in question) were notoriously tall, with males often being over six feet in height. (Different sources list them as being between 5'6" and 6'6" in average height).
It seems to be descriptions of three skeletons that are estimated to be from males who were a little over seven feet tall. That's well within normal variation in height for the Timucua.
The finds have no relation to the "suppressed giants" myth.
Perhaps a bit off topic- but I feel it is relevent to Historians, as well as other academics, scientists, etc; Do you feel there is often a reluctance to study or discuss topics that are legit, but associated by some with 'fringe' claims/ the paranormal/ conspiracy theories? (Thankfully not by you good people!) Or to 'play down' aspects, or discourage public interest?
Might such reluctance be seen by some as confirmation of a (non-existent) deliberate cover-up? Is there a stigma in academic circles around those who study such topics, even if the work is solid?
I imagine (given the popularity of pseudoscientific 'Ancient Astronaut', 'Alternative History' tv shows, websites, books, theories) there are many topics that have differing degrees of association with this stuff (Antikythera mechanism, 'baghdad battery', etc.).
Given the public are often fascinated, and misinformed about this stuff, might there be missed oppurtunities for education in history, science and critical thinking?