Sources
The Fourth Maya Codex
Citation Formats
General Reference
APA Style
BibTeX
Michael D. Coe, Stephen Houston, Mary Miller and Karl Taube are specialists in Maya epigraphy and archaeology, and this Precolumbia Mesoweb Press study is their peer reviewed scholarly assessment of the authenticity of the Grolier Codex, known as the Fourth Maya Codex. Its strength is that it is a peer reviewed argument by leading specialists in the field, engaging directly with the codex's material and iconographic evidence to argue for its authenticity against earlier doubts. Its limit is that authenticity questions around this codex had a genuinely contested history, so a claim treating the matter as settled beyond dispute should note that this assessment, however authoritative, is one scholarly position within that history.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
Published in Maya Archaeology 3 by Precolumbia Mesoweb Press, Michael D. Coe, Stephen Houston, Mary Miller and Karl Taube's peer reviewed assessment by leading specialists in Maya epigraphy and archaeology, peer reviewed scholarship. NotesPeer-reviewed scholarly study assessing the authenticity of the Maya codex known as the Grolier Codex (the Fourth Maya Codex).
Citation
AuthorMichael D. Coe, Stephen Houston, Mary Miller and Karl Taube
PublisherMaya Archaeology 3 / Precolumbia Mesoweb Press
Publication Year2015
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Cross-Tradition Connections
Associated With
Maya, Figures This source names Maya directly: "Coe, Stephen Houston, Mary Miller and Karl Taube are specialists in Maya epigraphy and archaeology, and this Precolumbia Mesoweb Press study is their peer reviewed scholarly assessment of the..."
Claims Backed By This Source (25 claims)
This source backs 25 claims across the atlas. As facts: 20 well-attested. As cited relationships: 3 holds. Plus 2 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Articles, 10 claims: 10 well-attested.
- Sources, 8 claims: 7 well-attested, 1 holds.
- Artifacts & Relics, 6 claims: 3 well-attested, 2 holds, 1 general references.
- Textual Witnesses, 1 claims: 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.