07-01-2022, 02:41 PM
There are two points as I see it:
1) I would suggest taking/looking for a location in the manuscript to take a sample(s) from where only the scribe left his/her DNA. This would avoid having to deal with many other samples of DNA to find the one you are looking for. Your typical reader will only touch the manuscript in the corner or on the sides and so will not leave significant DNA on or around the writing or images. However your scribe would be much more likely to leave DNA in those locations. So the idea that it would be necessary to pick one sample of DNA from amongst thousands doesn't arise and therefore dating the DNA becomes much less of an issue. I have suggested that the scribe(s)' DNA might be preserved in the ink where later DNA would not be found, but there maybe better locations in the manuscript to look for scribal DNA.
2) Supposing you isolate and sequence the DNA of someone from 1470 well that information would still be very useful as it could give an important clue into an early user or owner of the manuscript. People are very keen to know who owned the manuscript before Emperor Rudolf II, supposedly owned it. They wonder was it owned by John Dee etc. Knowing with whom the manuscript was with in 1470 would be very useful in tracing its history and who could well lead to finding the original creator of the manuscript or at least knowing in which part of the world/Europe it was in in 1470. So whilst sequencing the scribe's DNA would be preferable sequencing the DNA of an early owner would be far from useless.
I don't know how accurately DNA can be dated. I can look into this.
1) I would suggest taking/looking for a location in the manuscript to take a sample(s) from where only the scribe left his/her DNA. This would avoid having to deal with many other samples of DNA to find the one you are looking for. Your typical reader will only touch the manuscript in the corner or on the sides and so will not leave significant DNA on or around the writing or images. However your scribe would be much more likely to leave DNA in those locations. So the idea that it would be necessary to pick one sample of DNA from amongst thousands doesn't arise and therefore dating the DNA becomes much less of an issue. I have suggested that the scribe(s)' DNA might be preserved in the ink where later DNA would not be found, but there maybe better locations in the manuscript to look for scribal DNA.
2) Supposing you isolate and sequence the DNA of someone from 1470 well that information would still be very useful as it could give an important clue into an early user or owner of the manuscript. People are very keen to know who owned the manuscript before Emperor Rudolf II, supposedly owned it. They wonder was it owned by John Dee etc. Knowing with whom the manuscript was with in 1470 would be very useful in tracing its history and who could well lead to finding the original creator of the manuscript or at least knowing in which part of the world/Europe it was in in 1470. So whilst sequencing the scribe's DNA would be preferable sequencing the DNA of an early owner would be far from useless.
I don't know how accurately DNA can be dated. I can look into this.