Mark Knowles > 24-01-2026, 05:51 PM
(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
Doireannjane > 24-01-2026, 06:57 PM
PeteClifford > 24-01-2026, 08:08 PM
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.
Mark Knowles > 24-01-2026, 08:38 PM
(24-01-2026, 08:08 PM)PeteClifford Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why not?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.
Mark Knowles > 24-01-2026, 08:46 PM
R. Sale > 24-01-2026, 10:19 PM
Mark Knowles > 24-01-2026, 10:40 PM
Jorge_Stolfi > 25-01-2026, 02:30 AM
(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.
Wladimir D > 25-01-2026, 07:11 AM
Mark Knowles > 25-01-2026, 07:48 AM
(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