The Voynich Ninja

(25-01-2026, 07:11 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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,... .

No. See many  examples of individuals identified by genetic geneology.

(25-01-2026, 07:11 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, the positive results of DNA analysis from the manuscript are negligible.

Well, I am glad you are so confident. Technological progress has always had to fight against naysayers such as yourself who deny its possibility.

(25-01-2026, 07:48 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the Golden State Killer

That analysis spanned only a couple of generations.

Quote:identification of Richard III

In that case (1) the old DNA was taken from an individual that was suspected of being a specific known famous individual, (2) the modern DNA was taken from people who were known to be descendants of that famous individual or his close relatives, (3) several of those "known descendants"  were in fact not such thing, and (4) the DNA match was only one contributing factor to the conclusion.  

As for (4), by itself the match shows only that the female ancestral lines of the skeleton and of the two matching modern subjects converged at some point.  That is, there was some woman X that was the great^N-grandmother of the skeleton and also the great^M-grandmother of those two people, both through females only; and that N was not "too" large (otherwise there would have been some mutations in one or both DNA samples).  It does not prove that the two individuals were descendants of close relatives of the skeleton (that is, that N was small).

There were only two competing hypotheses, "the skeleton is Richard III" or "the skeleton is someone else".  The DNA match, alone, would have made the first hypothesis more likely, but not proved it.  What made it 99%+ certain was all the other evidence: the anatomical and medical conditions of the skeleton, the historical records of his death and burial, the C14 date, etc.  Before the DNA test, it was still considered possible that the skeleton was "someone else" who, by coincidence, happened to have the same medical problems as Richard III, died from similar wounds, and was buried at the right time in Richard III's grave, by mistake or deliberate charade.  The DNA match only made this already unlikely hypothesis practically impossible.

So, again, with the same logic we might perhaps be able to strengthen the hypothesis "Rudolph II owned the VMS", or weaken even further the hypothesis "John Dee owned the VMS".  

But I don't see how DNA analysis could help us identify the Author of the VMS -- even if and when we can recover and sequence some DNA trapped under the ink.  We may find a few thousand living people with matching DNA, but they will be scattered all over the world.  We may find a few hundred skeletons of people who died in the 1400s that also match.  If we are lucky, those skeletons will all be from the same town in Switzerland or whatever.  But, even then, we could not conclude that one of them was the VMS author, could we? 

By the way, any such DNA would be much more likely to come from the Scribes or from the workers who manufactured the vellum, who handled it much more extensively than the Author may have done before the writing.

All the best, --stolfi

(25-01-2026, 10:22 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way, any such DNA would be much more likely to come from the Scribes or from the workers who manufactured the vellum, who handled it much more extensively than the Author may have done before the writing.

That we don't know. It is true that if the author had very little contact with the manuscript and merely directed some other people to work on it then locating the author's DNA in the manuscript would be very difficult. However, I personally doubt the author was so far removed from the manuscript. Nevertheless, identifying a scribe's DNA would be very useful and a big step towards identifying the author. Even better if one has identified multiple scribes. Likewise identifying workers who manufactured the vellum would be of use.

(25-01-2026, 10:22 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If we are lucky, those skeletons will all be from the same town in Switzerland or whatever.

If we isolated the author to a specific town that would be a major advance.

(25-01-2026, 10:22 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We may find a few hundred skeletons of people who died in the 1400s that also match.  If we are lucky, those skeletons will all be from the same town in Switzerland or whatever.  But, even then, we could not conclude that one of them was the VMS author, could we?

Some matches will be closer than others. The greater the amount of common DNA between two sample will give us an idea of how closely related they are. An exact match will make the person the individual one is searching for or their identical twin.

The subject of Genetic Genealogy through family tree reconstruction continues to develop since it was first used to identify individuals based on DNA comparison with distant relatives. There are increasing numbers of cold cases where it has been used to identify criminals.

The sequencing of DNA from smaller, more fragmented and degraded samples continues to become faster and cheaper. I suspect that sequencing DNA from mixed or contaminated samples is improving.

DNA sequencing is increasingly used on historical samples.

What we can tell about an individual from their DNA is increasing.

If these technologies continue to advance then I don't see identifying the author from DNA being implausible. Remember how much this technology has advanced in recent decades.

And obviously if we knew who wrote the manuscript it would tell us so much about it and as with the carbon dating focus Voynich research more narrowly in terms of region etc.

It's a great idea, but...

I had lunch with the Beinecke curator a few days ago, and I'm sorry to report that such testing is exceedingly unlikely to happen any time soon, for all sorts of reasons, the main one being that the odds of finding something actionable are quite low compared to the cost and risk (yes, I know, but any kind of testing carries risks that must be assessed in comparison to the possibility of useful findings).

And given the very small number of individuals from the fifteenth century whose names and locales are known, it is also exceedingly unlikely that such testing would result in a name, even if a DNA sample could 1) be located on the manuscript and 2) be successfully identified with a fifteenth-century origin, as opposed to a modern reader. There are 600 years' worth of epithelial cells on the manuscript - untangling the dates they were shed is something that would be extremely difficult to manage. 

More broadly, I think it is also extremely unlikely that we will ever have a name to attach to the origins of the manuscript. We may be able, someday, to narrow down a more specific place of origin, and perhaps a community, but a name? I doubt it. There is really no reason to assume that the manuscript must have been written by someone(s) whose name(s) are known to us.

(25-01-2026, 05:32 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sorry to report that such testing is exceedingly unlikely to happen any time soon

Don't worry. I didn't expect such testing to happen any time soon as I thought I made clear from my comments. In fact, it seems to me advisable that the genetic and other techniques to do this need to be further developed before it becomes at all wise to do so. But these techniques are being developed and continued to be applied to historical objects, so one day they may have developed such that it becomes worth attempting in the context of the Voynich I think.

(25-01-2026, 05:32 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More broadly, I think it is also extremely unlikely that we will ever have a name to attach to the origins of the manuscript. We may be able, someday, to narrow down a more specific place of origin, and perhaps a community, but a name? I doubt it. There is really no reason to assume that the manuscript must have been written by someone(s) whose name(s) are known to us.

This is an area of speculation for all of us. I personally see no reason why the manuscript could not be narrowed down to a specific person or people, but then that's my thinking, ultimately time will tell.
There is really no reason to assume that the manuscript must not have been written by someone(s) whose name(s) are known to us. And what do we mean by "known to us"? My own theory as stated elsewhere has been that the manuscript was written by Abbot Antonio Barbavara, probably in collaboration with my his brother Ducal Secretary Francesco Barbavara and Milanese Ambassador Marcolino Barbavara. These are not "famous" people, so I don't know if people like them would count as "known to us". But for example I know surviving members of the Barbavara family, who if the eventuality ever arose would I think be happy to provide a DNA sample. There are a number of other specific historical individuals whose names have been similarly associated by other people with other theories about the Voynich, potentially DNA comparisons of their descendents could be done. And so people could be eliminated.

(25-01-2026, 05:32 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a great idea, but...

I had lunch with the Beinecke curator a few days ago, and I'm sorry to report that such testing is exceedingly unlikely to happen any time soon, for all sorts of reasons, the main one being that the odds of finding something actionable are quite low compared to the cost and risk (yes, I know, but any kind of testing carries risks that must be assessed in comparison to the possibility of useful findings).

And what about further sequencing as it pertains to the boar (or hagfish) involved with the vellum and/or the tree/plant sequencing from the ink and pigments involved and their respective region? Are these studies furthering? If a location is identified, is Yale required to give the manuscript back to its home country? Just curious of a few very important elements here.