The Voynich Manuscript is a unique document. Nothing else is written in the same script. A few others from the period are encrypted, notably Bellicorum Inst

The Voynich Manuscript is a unique document. Nothing else is written in the same script. A few others from the period are encrypted, notably Bellicorum Instrumentorum Liber by Giovanni Fontana, but they're trivial to decipher. Only one other I'm aware of has any naked women in baths. For other scripts, there either are numerous texts for each (e.g. Egyptian, Sumerian, Mycaenean Greek, Khitan, Etruscan, Rongorongo), or very few short texts (e.g. Pictish). Not a stand-alone 240 page book. But there are examples of forged documents from the middle ages, e.g. the Gospel of Barnabas and the Donation of Constantine. I tried to decipher the Voynich Manuscript, before discovering that there were other, simpler explanations for its apparent meaningfulness (e.g. the observations described in the Montemurro & Zanette paper): http://www.fmjlang.co.uk/voynich/Voynich.html http://www.fmjlang.co.uk/voynich/Voynich.html . It's possible it's some kind of verbose cipher devised by someone ahead of his time. It's even possible, though very unlikely, that it's written in a Northwest Caucasian language. I've ruled out other language groups. The approximate adherence to Zipf's Law is telling us something about how the text was produced. When I have time, I might look into whether state machine generated output follows Zipf's Law. I suspect it does generally, and know it does for the text I generated, but I'd like solid proof and it would be another nail in the coffin of the idea it's unencrypted or lightly encrypted text. Or it might not.