Author's note: I have received positive and negative feedback concerning the accounts of the skeletons found in this area. Some feedback is that I am trying to make up some "weird and unexplained" phenomenon to gain interest in my website. I would like to plainly state that my "my topic" guides my website content, not vice versa, at all times.
The plain truth is "Large Skeletons" WERE found in our area. My opinion on this matter is that whether or not these skeletons were 6 OR 8 feet tall, they were still huge in comparison to the average height of men in these times, which was 4.5 to around 5 feet tall. At any rate, I believe that they were closer to 7 feet tall myself...that the archeologists were "under estimating" their calculations instead of exaggerating to ensure there claims were "respected." Little did they know that this still would be hard to believe for many.
Simply put, that the words such as "huge", "giant-like" and "gigantic" are used so often when describing these skeletons (by the archeologists. anthropologists and historians alike) is to me the indicator that one of two things must be true...
1.) These people must have been digging up "skeletons of abnormally smaller sizes" prior to coming acrossed the Andaste (Susquehannock) skeletons to have referred to them in terms that can only mean "abnormally larger" than what they were used to finding. This therefore should be a call to action that we should investigate many SMALL people living around our area then - shouldn't it?
2.) The Andaste (Susquehannock) skeletons found in our area WERE INDEED abnormally large compared to what these seasoned archeologists were used to finding.
You, the reader, are obviously free to pick whichever one of the above explanations that you feel most comfortable with.
Use the following links to read more about the giant skeletons that were found: