|
Would you like to visit the Easter Islands? Ever
since Captain Cook landed there in the early 1800's, these small
Pacific islands with their big eyed, long eared monoliths have
captured the world's imagination. There they are, almost two thousand
granite giants, standing silent guard for centuries. Who built
them and why? How could a small, non-technological culture move
such massive amounts of stone such great distances? Is there any
connection to other ancient monuments around the world? Researchers
are just now beginning to unlock these mysteries.
|
Illustration
by Mary de Lave
|
Surprisingly,
however, these were not the questions on the mind of the
fingerprint experts who landed on the Easter Islands over
sixty years ago. To them, one of many scientific teams of
the era conducting 'superiority' research, the isolated Easter Islands presented a novel opportunity.
All
the Brahmin castes were having their fingerprints taken,
analyzed, cataloged and compared.; as were |
North American
"Negroes," North American Caucasians, Pygmies,and numerous
other population sub-groups. Because Europeans had landed on the
Easter Islands only a few generations ago, it was easy to determine
who had 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% European genes.
Selective data from these fingerprints were compared to the
fingerprints of gorillas, lemurs, and orangutans. The more the
statistical factors matched the Simian population, the lower on
the evolutionary scale the population in question was thought
to be.
Guess what? Easter Islanders with greater amounts
of European genes were found superior. Son of a gun. All over
the world, scientific teams were getting similar results: 'they'
are inferior, 'we' are superior. This study stands as a classic
example of how a built-in bias can skew the data of the most scientifically
conducted experiments.
Through the telescope of time, the prejudices
of the researchers are embarrassingly obvious. Then, the boiling
stew of racial and ethnic hatred soon to erupt as World War II
was already bubbling over the sides of the cauldron. But, will
current blind spots seem just as self serving a generation or
two from now. And if so, will our errors be ones we can already
guess at (environmental, political, racial)? Or, is some minor
character, quietly waiting for events we can hardly imagine, poised
to claim center stage? At that time, who will appear the heroes
and heroines, and who the villains?
Important PS: Although some anthropological
research of this era was biased, these and other studies set the
stage for more objective studies of more recent times and also
accumulated data that produced more constructive results.
Current Research
Moving from the South Pacific closer to home,
current medical research has produced some very interesting findings
that raise exciting possibilities.
Appearing in Oncology (32: 27-33, 1975) and Cancer
Investigation (6[1], 15-27, 1988), among other reports in medical
journals, doctors have reported finding statistically significant
markers associated with breast cancer. Quoting from the latter
article, Digital Dermatoglyphics in Mammary Cancer (Howard Bierman,
M.D., Michael Faith, Ph.D., and Morgan E. Stewart, Ph.D.):
|
"If these [fingerprint]
findings are confirmed, the prints described will represent
a noninvasive anatomical marker of breast cancer risk." |
Think of the possibilities. I can imagine a time,
hopefully in the not too distant future, when doctors have a dermatoglyphic
(fingerprint) diagnoser in their office. Patients put their hands
on a scanner, the attached computer analyzes the hands looking
for high risk indicators. Out from the printer comes an in depth
evaluation.
But let's go a step further. Although over 6,000
articles have appeared in medical journals (in English alone),
every report I've read studies either hand shape, lines, or fingerprints;
none incorporate all three at once. And none offer a psychological
profile to go with the statistical research on diagnostic indicators.
For instance, if the most current research is correct, the appearance
of six or more whorl pattern prints occurs approximately ten times
more often in breast cancer patients than the population at large.
In the IIHA system, this marking indicates a high propensity toward
burdensome relationships, Servitude instead of Service.
Is it possible that by examining other markings
in the hands, fingerprints can be correlated with a more detailed
holistic profile to separate those with a genetic predisposition
toward breast cancer from those with behaviors that add to its
likelihood? Type A behavior, now well known, is associated with
heart disease. Is there a "Type BC" behavior, (inappropriate
self sacrifice), as yet to be identified, associated with breast
cancer?
The purpose of the International Institute of
Hand Analysis is to further the use of Hand Analysis as a tool
for personal and planetary growth. It feels to me that things
are moving swiftly in that direction. |
