The Voynich Ninja

(24-01-2026, 04:35 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-01-2026, 08:36 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, when that day comes, identifying the author(s) of the manuscript will be a major advance towards our understanding of the manuscript.

Even after that technology is available, in order to identify some DNA recovered from the VMS as being from person X, we will need samples of DNA that are known to come from person X, or at least from his relatives.  As was the case of that Leonardo article you linked.  

But would we ever get such samples?  Just statistically, the VMS Author is most likely to have been a Mr. Nobody who, when he was writing the VMS, was living some little town somewhere in Europe.  There is no reason to assume even that he was born in Europe.

Moreover, the (alleged) Leonardo DNA samples were recovered from a sketch that he drew himself.  But the VMS was most likely written by a Scribe or Scribes distinct from the Author, who must have left a lot more DNA on it than the Author himself.  How could we tell them apart?

And then there are all the people who handled the VMS in the past 600 years -- much more heavily than people handled that Leonardo drawing.  Barschius alone must have left 1000 times more DNA on it than the Author did.

However, that technology could resolve the question of whether Rudolf ever owned the VMS. His DNA should be rather easy to obtain.  If he indeed salivated when he saw the "Bacon Manuscript"...

All the best, --stolfi

These days it is not necessary to know in advance whose DNA one suspects. Using DNA databases one can find the nearest relatives and then triangulate to the individual in question. Take the famous case of the identification of the Golden State Killer.

The DNA of readers of the Voynich manuscript are much more likely to be found in different places on the manuscript such as the corners or edges. I have suggested looking for a sample of the author's or scribe's DNA under the ink.

Tree and boar (and/or possibly hagfish) DNA can be obtained from the ink and vellum can’t it?

Quote:These days it is not necessary to know in advance whose DNA one suspects. Using DNA databases one can find the nearest relatives and then triangulate to the individual in question. Take the famous case of the identification of the Golden State Killer.

Sorry, that’s not going to work with a gap of 600 years.

(24-01-2026, 08:08 PM)PeteClifford Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:These days it is not necessary to know in advance whose DNA one suspects. Using DNA databases one can find the nearest relatives and then triangulate to the individual in question. Take the famous case of the identification of the Golden State Killer.

Sorry, that’s not going to work with a gap of 600 years.

Why not?

One could find the closest living relatives on the database. This will also give an indication of region of origin. One can reconstruct the family tree.

One can also date DNA I believe as it degrades at a particular rate. So, if one finds 600 year old human DNA then that might help support the idea of it being a 15th century work.

While the prospect is interesting, it really seems a bit over enthusiastic First, the difficulty of obtaining a sample. How much ink would need to be removed to find a sufficient sample? Maybe the parchment maker left his DNA behind. Would Beineke ever agree? Seems doubtful -as - apparently - they have restricted access to the text.

DNA degrades at a rate dependent on conditions. Heat and moisture increase the rate. At a minimum, it doesn't last forever.

Even if every problem above were resolved. Can't stop degradation. And if the VMs author had descendants living today. How many generations would that be? With every generation, 50% of that original person's DNA is 'lost'. Then, whatever it is that remains (Which bit is it exactly?), this will identify a person (or persons), who may or may not exist in the historical record. Kinda hard to see how that works.

Here's a thought: Can we get the Duke of Berry's DNA off the Duke of Berry's books????? Or Burgundy, or whatever? Or maybe we could find Jean d'Arras in his book on Melisine?
And do we really have the Duke's DNA?  Has this ever been done??

One advantage in this situation is that these techniques are being developed and improved all the time. And so what was once impossible with DNA is now possible. And what is now very difficult or impossible is likely to become easier.

Because of the applications in criminology and other areas isolating DNA from smaller and smaller samples has become possible. I see no reason why these trends in technological improvement will not mean that we cannot locate the author's DNA and maybe a number of other people's DNA. When the day comes I imagine the Beinecke will consent to allowing it to be done. Identifying the author or scribes would make a huge difference to Voynich research.

Look at comparisons of Richard III's DNA in surviving descendents. This kind of thing is already being done.

(24-01-2026, 08:38 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One could find the closest living relatives on the database. This will also give an indication of region of origin. One can reconstruct the family tree.

A person has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 grand-grandparents, ectc. Guessing 25 years average between generations, 600 years is 24 generations.  Thus a person living today has about 2^24 = ~4'000'000 potential ancestors who were alive in ~1430.

The number of actual distinct ancestors will be much smaller, of course, because there is a large chance of one marrying one's cousin N-removed.  So your ancestor along a specific 24-step father/mother chain may be the same person as that along another 24-step father/mother chain.  But even so the number of actual distinct ancestors must typically be in the tens of thousands.  

The curious thing is that, the way recombination works, each person's DNA has a relatively small number N(g) of segments, such that each segment is inherited whole from an ancestor g generations back.  While the number of potential ancestors grows exponentially with g, the number of segments N(g) grows linearly with g.  The consequence is that, for g large enough, one's DNA carries pieces from only a relatively small subset of one's ancestors g generations back.  

So a descendant of Mr. X, the VMS author, today may have zero (not just a small amount) of his DNA.

One can reason in reverse, and conclude that a person alive in the 1400s has ~4'000'000 potential descendants today.  Again, many of those descendants will be the same person.  But even so the number may be tens of thousands.  And each of them has tens of thousands ancestors who were alive in the 1400s.  

Thus, even if we find that José Schmidt in Uruguay has a bit of DNA that matches a bit of DNA extracted from the book, how can we determine which of José's 55'672 actual 15th century ancestors is the one who had that DNA?  Can we even get the names -- forget the DNA -- of a few thousands of those ancestors?

This is only a small sample of the complications of DNA mixing and propagation. I have a very limited understanding of it myself -- only enough to know that it is quite complicated, and that details like those, by themselves, may make the idea unfeasible.  No matter how sensitive the technology becomes.

All the best, --stolfi

For DNA analysis results to be effective, it is necessary to have Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA samples from the suspected owners (manufacturers). Di, Tepenitsa, Rudolf,... Or documented direct male lines of their descendants. The possibility of female infidelity and adoption must be taken into account. Comparing results with female mitochondrial DNA is even more difficult, since with each generation, children inherit different sections of the female DNA from their father and mother. And the sections that need to be compared become short, which can lead to distorted analysis.

What results are you hoping to achieve? There is population migration. For example, my MITO shows H1 (PYRENEES). And this despite the fact that, according to documents, the female line lived in the Ryazan Principality for the last 300 years.

With Y-DNA, it turned out to be easier, since there are documented burials of Russian princes (Rurikovichs). My Y-DNA is N1C1a1a1a.
So, the positive results of DNA analysis from the manuscript are negligible.

(25-01-2026, 02:30 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-01-2026, 08:38 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One could find the closest living relatives on the database. This will also give an indication of region of origin. One can reconstruct the family tree.

A person has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 grand-grandparents, ectc. Guessing 25 years average between generations, 600 years is 24 generations.  Thus a person living today has about 2^24 = ~4'000'000 potential ancestors who were alive in ~1430.

The number of actual distinct ancestors will be much smaller, of course, because there is a large chance of one marrying one's cousin N-removed.  So your ancestor along a specific 24-step father/mother chain may be the same person as that along another 24-step father/mother chain.  But even so the number of actual distinct ancestors must typically be in the tens of thousands.  

The curious thing is that, the way recombination works, each person's DNA has a relatively small number N(g) of segments, such that each segment is inherited whole from an ancestor g generations back.  While the number of potential ancestors grows exponentially with g, the number of segments N(g) grows linearly with g.  The consequence is that, for g large enough, one's DNA carries pieces from only a relatively small subset of one's ancestors g generations back.  

So a descendant of Mr. X, the VMS author, today may have zero (not just a small amount) of his DNA.

One can reason in reverse, and conclude that a person alive in the 1400s has ~4'000'000 potential descendants today.  Again, many of those descendants will be the same person.  But even so the number may be tens of thousands.  And each of them has tens of thousands ancestors who were alive in the 1400s.  

Thus, even if we find that José Schmidt in Uruguay has a bit of DNA that matches a bit of DNA extracted from the book, how can we determine which of José's 55'672 actual 15th century ancestors is the one who had that DNA?  Can we even get the names -- forget the DNA -- of a few thousands of those ancestors?

This is only a small sample of the complications of DNA mixing and propagation. I have a very limited understanding of it myself -- only enough to know that it is quite complicated, and that details like those, by themselves, may make the idea unfeasible.  No matter how sensitive the technology becomes.

All the best, --stolfi

Genetic comparison leads to the identification of multiple descendents not only one.

If you read up on the examples I mentioned such as the Golden State Killer where multiple relatives were identified and so a common family tree produced and the case of the identification of Richard III for whom the DNA of known descendents was compared that might make it clearer.