The Missing Morhiss Giant: Not Missing and Not Giant (by Wendy Dollar)

​The quest to demonstrate the giants existed is full of pieces of mysteriously missing evidence. I love a good mystery: my passion for mysteries grew as I spent many hours with two of my older brothers on a quest to excavate an old stone cellar nestled deep in the ground in the woods beside our yard.  One of the pieces of evidence that giantologists claim has "gone missing" is a rather robust skull from a 1939 excavation in Victoria, Texas. I am pleased to report that skull is neither missing nor that of a giant. 
​ 

​I began my search for the missing skull based on this newspaper clipping, which is reproduced widely on the internet:​

Richard Dewhurst discussed this case in his book The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America and used this clipping  from the San Antonia Express as his main source. There is no date on the image, titled "Beach Giant’s Skull Unearthed by WPA Workers near Victoria," and the article does not name the site where the skull was found. I could not find any other similarly documented material from that specific paper nor its time era.   However, without significant and more reliable proof I cannot confirm nor deny the authenticity of this specific article.

This page on Terje Dahl's website discusses the article and identifies the site as Morhiss Mound.  A Google search for "Morhiss giant" returned several pseudoscience sites that also used the same clipping from the San Antonio newspaper along with declarations of it being a piece of evidence to prove the existence of giants. 

Dahl states that the "giant skull" is missing, saying that

“a newspaper article from 1940 tells that a giant- sized skull was found in Texas I have now received confirmation from the University of Texas that a large skull was found in the Morhiss mound in 1939 but that the skull has been missing from the collection for a long time.”

Dahl reproduced some correspondence with the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory (TARL) that concludes that, because the skull from Morhiss could not be located, the "cover-up" of information about giants "must have also been worldwide":
 
“One more side note, I have contacted an editor and head of the museum in Seymour, Texas. They each had no clue about these articles. The only response I received from any educational organization was from the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory. They also did not know anything about these articles. It amazes me how complete the Smithsonian cover-up has been in the US. The cover-up must have also been worldwide.”
 
These letters left me feeling unsatisfied and did not sit well with my inner detective skills.  Both Dahl and Dewhurst implied that the skull was missing and no one seemed to have had it for a very long time. I took it upon myself to email the very same laboratory at TARL. I chose to write to an osteologist at the university. This is the response:
​

From: Stacy Marie Drake
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Giant skull

Hi,

I have finally been able to track down accession records and the actual remains of the individual in question. Yes, this means that TARL does in fact have the physical remains of this supposed "giant". Let me now say that, as a trained Osteologist, while this individual is indeed large, "he" is in no way what I would consider outside of the normal range of human variation. I also want to stress here that the prehistoric individuals from coastal Texas are historically recognized as having been large, robust individuals, and this person is no exception, nor is he outside of the norm.

It is my belief that there may have been a misunderstanding or a miscommunication in the past that led to the idea that the remains of this individual were lost. While the original documentation of the burial does indicate the odd proportions of the cranium in comparison to the postcranial material, I see no indication of this in the actual remains. This individual is a male, and is one of the most robust individuals I have seen. The skull has also been poorly reconstructed, which may have contributed to the hype about the overall size of the individual.

So, to answer your question: The Morhiss "Giant" is not missing. And is not a giant.

Please let me know if you have any further questions, and thank you for reaching out to me! Best of luck in your research!

Best,
Stacy Drake

Osteologist and NAGPRA Coordinator
Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory
The University of Texas at Austin
​

The missing "giant skull" from Morhiss Mound still exists: it's not missing, and it's not a giant.

​According to an article from the Texas Beyond History website, investigation of Morhiss Mound began in the late 1800’s with Miss Victoria M. Rose. She was a historian and an editor for the Laredo Daily Times. She first publicized the mound in a book she wrote about the settlement of Victoria, Texas, in 1883. She described the mound as a curiosity.  It was located on the east bank of a river. The mound was partly located in a local farmers’ backyard. Rose described it as “identical to that of the mound builders.”
 
It was not until many years later in 1930’s that the mound was once again in the limelight, this time it caught the attention of the archaeologists A. T.  Jackson. He began his preliminary excavation a couple of years later in 1932 with the help of Professor James E. Pierce. He found several human remains in this first dig which proved Victoria Roses’ theory that this was indeed an ancient burial mound. Within the next decade there were dozens of digs that produced skeletal remains and artifacts. It was later excavated again from 1938- 1940 by archaeologist William A. Duffen and a team of about 30 workers.
 
He was recently interviewed by TARL at the age of 99. He enjoyed reminiscing about the dig.   
                                                                                                                    
So while this story is clearly fascinating, it is no longer a mystery or a conspiracy. The bones are in the safe hands of the good people at TARL and the skull in question is not that of a giant. The skull was however, improperly reconstructed and was described as “not beyond the scope of normal human variation.” The mountain into a molehill phrase comes to mind. If you would like to read more about the real story of the Morhiss Mound from the Universities website take a look at the Texas Beyond History website.