|Classic Maya collapse|
|Spanish conquest of the Maya|
The Grolier Codex (sometimes referred to as the Sáenz Codex or the Maya Codex of Mexico) is a pre-Columbian Maya codex that first came to light in the 1970s. Its authenticity has since been disputed, although recent scholarship tends to support the view that it's a genuine pre-Columbian document. In 2018, a team of scientists from Mexico's National Institute for Archeology and History publicized the conclusion of a series of chemical tests that had found the ink used on the Codex to be pre-Columbian, dating the document to the period between 1021 and 1154 CE. This would make it the oldest surviving Maya codex.
The Codex first appeared in a private collection in the 20th century and was displayed at the Grolier Club in New York, hence its name. The codex consists of a fragment of a Maya book, containing almanacs of Venus represented in a somewhat simplified fashion, compared to the known Maya codices. If genuine, the Grolier Codex would be only the fourth surviving pre-Columbian Maya book.
The codex is said to have been recovered from a cave in the Mexican state of Chiapas in the 1960s, together with a mosaic mask and some blank pages of pre-Columbian fig-bark paper. It was displayed at the Grolier Club from April 20 to June 5, 1971, and is now held in Mexico City. In 1973, Michael D. Coe published the first half-size recto-side facsimile of the codex in The Maya Scribe and His World, produced by the Grolier Club. The codex contains a Venus almanac that, in structure, is closely related to the Venus almanac contained in the Dresden Codex.
The codex, although displaying Mixtec stylistic features, is judged to be Maya based upon the use of bark paper instead of the deerhide preferred for Mixtec codices and because of the presence of Maya day signs and numbering. The Mixtec interpretation of the iconography may have simply been due to incomplete knowledge of highland Maya iconography during the Postclassic period.
The codex is poorly preserved; the surviving page fragments display a number of figures in central Mexican style, combined with Maya numbering and day glyphs. The document is currently held by the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico city.
In 2007, the physics institute of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México subjected the codex to non-destructive testing in an effort to determine its authenticity. The results did not reach any firm conclusions. According to these tests, the document apparently contains genuine pre-Columbian materials; yet certain characteristics of the document were seen as questionable, such as some aspects of its discernible wear and tear.
In 2016 a team of Mayanists including Coe published a review of the evidence and presented further arguments in support of the authenticity of the document. In 2017, there was a critical review of the argument by Bruce Love, who argued that the codex's authenticity remained doubtful. Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History judged it to be an authentic Pre-Columbian codex in 2018.
The Grolier Codex is a screenfold book fashioned from bark paper, coated with stucco on both sides and painted on one side. Ten painted pages survive of a twenty-page book; formerly there were judged to be eleven pages, but two fragments are now considered to come from the same page. The lower portions of the pages are badly damaged by moisture, eroding and staining bottom of each page. The greatest height of any of the surviving page fragments is 18 centimetres (7.1 in) and the average page width is 12.5 centimetres (4.9 in). Several of the pages (pages 4–6) are still attached to each other, The lost pages would have been the first eight and the last two.
Five single sheets of bark paper were found associated with the codex, they had no stucco coating and were brown and water stained. Two of these had adhered to the codex and the other three may have once been with the codex but had separated. One of these sheets had a painted line in the same red hematite pigment used in the codex itself. A smaller sheet of bark paper was attached to the lined sheet and this smaller piece was submitted for radiocarbon dating. This testing produced a date for the sheet of AD 1230 ± 130; this would date the document to the end of the Early Postclassic period (c. 950–1200) and would make the codex the oldest known surviving Mesoamerican codex. The lack of incrustations or insect damage to the codex suggests that, if genuine, it was stored inside a container for hundreds of years. The overall damaged state of the codex conflicts with the good preservation of surviving parts; it may be that the damaged codex was deliberately decommissioned as a ritual object, rather than being simply discarded.
Each page of the codex has been painted on one side with a standing figure facing left. Each figure holds a weapon and most grip a rope leading to a restrained captive. Colours used on the codex include hematite red, black, blue-green, a red wash and a brown wash, all upon a strong white background. The left-hand side of each page is marked by a column of day signs; where this column is complete these total thirteen in all. Each day sign is associated with a bar-and-dot numerical coefficient. Six pages depict a figure bearing weapons and accompanied by a captive (pages 1–4, 6 and 9), two pages (5 and 8) both depict a figure hurling a dart at a temple. Page 7 of the codex shows a passive warrior standing in front of a tree. Page 11 depicts a death god with a javelin, pointing his weapon at a water vessel containing a snail. Page 10 is a badly damaged fragment with the subject largely obliterated. Based on the surviving portion, Michael Coe thought it depicted a standing figure wearing a waterbird headdress and bearing an atlatl. The figures represented on each page differ from those on the other Maya codices and are far more similar to the Mixtec codices and Toltec art styles of central Mexico. The heads of the death gods painted in the Grolier Codex are almost identical to those represented in the Laud Codex and Fejérváry-Mayer Codex, including the red colouring of the portion of the teeth closest to the gums.
The pages of the Grolier Codex contain seven hieroglyphs representing days; the style of these glyphs differs from that of the other three Maya codices but is most similar to the glyphs of the Dresden Codex. The glyphs are arranged in vertical columns incorporating day signs accompanied by a number; each date corresponds to a manifestation of Venus. Whereas the Venus almanac in the Dresden Codex documents the planet after inferior conjunction as the morning star, the Grolier Codex documents all four of the stations of Venus: rising after inferior conjunction as morning star in the east, disappearance before superior conjunction, reappearance as evening star in the west and disappearance before inferior conjunction.
The Venus calendar of the Codex seems to contain the predicted position in the sky of planet Venus during the span of 104 years. This would have been quite useful for the local calendar priest or day-keeper, considering that the variable cloud cover of eastern Mesoamerica can often make the direct sky observation difficult.
The codex is said to have been found enclosed in a wooden box in a dry cave in the highlands of Chiapas near Tortuguero; it was said to have been found with a turquoise mask that is now in the collection of Dumbarton Oaks. In 1965 Mexican collector Dr. Josué Sáenz was taken by two men on a light plane to a remote airstrip in the foothills of the Sierra Madre near Tortuguero in Tabasco state; the compass of the plane was covered with a cloth but Sáenz recognized his approximate location. At the airstrip he was shown the codex along with some other looted Maya artifacts and was told that he could take the items back to Mexico City for authentication before purchasing them. The antiquities expert that Sáenz consulted declared that the artifacts were fakes but Sáenz later purchased the codex and permitted Michael Coe to display the codex at the Grolier Club in 1971. In 1976, the United States-Mexico Artifacts Treaty of 1970 was invoked by the Attorney General of Mexico. This resulted in the seizure of the codex and its return to Mexico. Sáenz donated the codex to the Mexican government and it is currently kept in a vault in the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City and is not on public display. The claimed discovery of the Grolier Codex would make it the only pre-Columbian codex discovered in the course of the 20th century, except for some codex fragments excavated by archaeologists.
English Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson cast strong doubts upon the authenticity of the Grolier Codex in his 1975 article The Grolier Codex, published in volume 27 of the Contributions of the University of California. Thompson argued that the codex was a modern forgery and that the unusual mix of styles in the document was not due to the mixing of cultures but rather due to the hand of a forger. Thompson queried the illustration of all four stations of Venus in the codex, noting that other Mesoamerican codices only illustrated the more spectacular appearance of Venus as morning star. This claim has been refuted more recently, with evidence presented from the Codex Telleriano-Remensis that the god of the morning star also presided over the evening star. The contents of the document have not been copied directly from any of the generally accepted Maya codices, although they do resemble pages 46 to 50 of the Dresden Codex.
Following Thompson's attack upon the veracity of the codex, a number of scholars published their opinions that the document is genuine over the course of the 1980s and early 1990s, including John B. Carlson, Yuri Knorozov, Thomas A. Lee, Jr., Jesús Ignacio Mora Echeverría, George E. Stuart, and Karl Taube. In 2000, German epigrapher Nikolai Grube expressed his belief that the document is genuine, based upon the precision of the Venus almanac. However, in a later publication from 2012, he clearly calls the codex a forgery. In 2002, French archaeologist Claude-François Baudez commented – like Thompson before – that the codex serves no divinatory purpose and was useless as an aid to a Maya priest; he believes that the document is the product of a forger using pre-Columbian materials but relatively ignorant of his subject. The codex is notable in its use of prominent illustrations of uniform size and the almost complete absence of hieroglyphic text; the deities lack names and the cardinal directions are unmarked. In a paper published in 2003, the authors (including Mayanist Stephen D. Houston) argue that the iconography and lack of hieroglyphic text are the result of a strong central Mexican stylistic influence.
A further avenue of defending the Codex's authenticity was based not upon understanding of the astrological and oracular content, but upon understanding of the language and hieroglyphics themselves. In 1973 Michael Coe would write that "there was no forger in the world that could possibly know to combine glyphs in the manner presented in the Grolier Codex." In a 1983 study John Carlson echoes Coe with a conclusion that the Grolier Codex reflects knowledge of the Mayan language that was not known to be deciphered by academics until 1982, long after the Codex's discovery in the 1960s. Carlson and Coe were not able to disprove the forgery hypothesis with this information, but the circumstances required for a potential forger to possess this information but never reveal it made its veracity far more likely according to them.
The radiocarbon dating of an associated sheet of unstuccoed bark paper had been used to support a 13th-century date for the Grolier Codex. Large quantities of pre-Columbian bark paper are reported to have been found in dry caves, so a genuine piece of blank pre-Columbian paper may have been used by a forger as a base for painting a falsified codex. However, the existence of such stocks of pre-Columbian paper has not been confirmed by scholars. The fact that the codex is painted on one side only while the three uncontested Maya codices are all painted on both sides has been used as an argument against its authenticity, although Michael Coe has argued that parts of non-Maya Mesoamerican codices had sometimes been left blank for many years before being painted in a style distinct from the opposite side. Baudez, in his 2002 critique of the Grolier Codex, noted that the fact that the codex is only painted on one side is irrelevant in determining its authenticity, since there are many examples of Mesoamerican codices not being painted on both sides. Further doubts have been cast upon how Sáenz acquired the codex and the iconography of the document itself. Archaeologist Donna Yates considers that Coe's account of Sáenz being contacted by an unnamed person and flown to a remote airstrip by unidentified persons to be "fantastical". As of 2012, the authenticity of the document was still disputed, although Carlson has published a further article reaffirming its legitimacy, citing 2002 radiocarbon testing of samples from the codex itself as well his own epigraphic and iconographic analyses.
In December 2015, Michael Coe, together with Mary Miller, Stephen Houston and Karl Taube once again published support for the legitimacy of the codex, although no new analysis was presented. Donna Yates, a professor of the University of Glasgow studying antiquarian art crime, dismissed objections about the document's authenticity due to the team's findings. These include sharp cuts in the codex being caused by gypsum plaster, not modern tools; no modern pigments were found and contained "Mayan blue" pigments that were difficult to reproduce; the figures drawn in the codex align and conform to the grid lines of Maya murals; the radiocarbon dating of the bark paper is still confirmed as belonging to the 12th–13th century; other items discovered along with the codex have been proven to be authentic. In August 2017, however, Bruce Love, archaeologist, expert in Post-Classic Yucatec Maya culture, and writer of a commentary on the Paris Codex, dissected the 2015 argument of Coe and his co-authors and pointed out a number of misreadings and unfounded assertions in it; he concluded that only a thorough chemical analysis of the organic materials contained in the artefact will finally be able to settle the question.
The artifact shows a number of idiosyncrasies that raise questions concerning its authenticity. The numbering systems used in the codex conflict. The Maya bar-and-dot system is used to mark units, but the central Mexican dot system is used to mark multiples of twenty (for example by using 11 dots instead of 2 bars and a dot, as would be the case in the bar-and-dot system where a bar indicates 5 and a dot indicates 1). Some bar-and-dot numbers are placed within a cartouche decorated with a knot at the top. The only other instance of such a cartouche being used with numbers is in the Dresden Codex, where the cartouche has a very specific function, indicating a negative date count from the zero year of the great cycle of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (roughly equivalent to the function of BC in the Gregorian calendar). In the Grolier Codex, where the numbers mark intervals between stations of Venus, the use of this cartouche appears meaningless, although it is suggested that it means that the codex may be read both from the front and from the back.
In the Grolier Codex captives are shown bound with cords leading to their necks, however the most common convention in Mesoamerican art is the depiction of captives bound by the arms or wrists. Some of the figures in the codex represent deities (on pages 1–2, 4–6 and 9) and some represent mortal warriors without supernatural attributes (on pages 3, 7 and 8). Both the deities and the mortals are performing the same actions such as the capture of a prisoner, or conquest symbolised by a spear passing through a temple. Although the codex depicts the stations of Venus, none of the warlike figures is identified with attributes normally associated with the planet in Maya or central Mexican art. On page 9, a bound captive is depicted from a high point of view with a sense of perspective that French Mesoamericanist and iconographer Claude-François Baudez considers alien to Mesoamerican art. God K (Kʼawiil) is depicted twice in the codex. However, his attributes are inconsistent with other pre-Columbian depictions, as he is shown with human incisors instead of snake fangs.
The deity depicted on page 9 of the Grolier Codex is believed to be the Mountain God with split head. This image was otherwise unknown in the 1960s. Other examples of it were later discovered at the Maya sites of Tancah and Pasión del Cristo. Coe and his colleagues argue that it is very unlikely that a forger would have known about this deity before it was described elsewhere.
The paper used for the Grolier Codex appears to be authentic pre-Columbian bark paper dating from the 13th century. It is also known as Amate paper; traditionally, it was made from trees of the fig (Ficus) family, because this type of bark is quite easy to process.
A number of non-destructive techniques have been applied to the codex in an effort to authenticate it, and the results were published in 2008. The analysis revealed that only pre-Columbian materials had been used in its creation; no modern inorganic materials were detected. Some inconsistencies were revealed however; cuts along the page edges seem to have been made with a sharp blade in order to give the appearance of natural wear and tear and the supposed water staining did not permeate the paper. The researchers commented that the staining appeared to be the result of drops of dye or ink being applied to the surface of the codex. In conclusion the researchers were unable to support or refute the pre-Columbian nature of the codex. Unusually for a document that supposedly was stored in a cave for centuries, the paint of the codex still appears fresh.
In 2007, the codex was tested in the Instituto de Física of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City using a 3 megaelectronvolt pelletron particle accelerator. Testing methods applied to the codex included ultraviolet imaging, infrared reflectography, optical microscopy, particle-induced X-ray emission and Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS). The specific aim of this non-destructive testing was to compare the materials used in the codex with those used in other pre-Columbian codices.
The testing showed that the base layer onto which the codex was painted is composed of gypsum, a material used as a base layer for paintings since antiquity. The black paint was analysed with RBS and found to be a carbon-based pigment consistent with other pre-Columbian Mexican codices. The red colour used in the codex is red ochre, an iron-based pigment.
Overall, the investigators concluded that the codex does contain some original pre-Columbian materials but could not confirm that the document is authentic.
There is very little blue colouration in the Grolier Codex, so the presence of the distinctive Maya blue pigment has been the subject of some dispute.
Analysis by particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) revealed the blue pigment used on the codex does seem to contain the palygorskite mineral, a type of clay which is the main inorganic component of Maya blue.
Also, the elemental composition of this pigment was found not to contain cobalt, which might have indicated a 20th century production.
However, the mineral profile of palygorskite is also somewhat similar to that of lapis lazuli, which might give a false positive. So this could not be ruled out since PIXE only identifies elements, not compounds.
Thus, the presence of palygorskite would point to the authenticity of the manuscript. According to Prof. Mary Miller, this mineral was not identified as a component of the Maya blue pigment until 1964, and it was only synthesized in a lab in the 1980s. So, according to Miller, the presence of palygorskite has basically been confirmed, and this supports the authenticity of the manuscript.
But also, according to Miller, in the context of its time, this manuscript was "only a modest, workaday object likely created by a provincial artist", and thus it was not seen as any special elaborate production.
- Boletín N° 299 (2018). "INAH ratifica al Códice Maya de México, antes llamado Grolier, como el manuscrito auténtico más antiguo de América" [INAH ratifies the Mayan Codex of Mexico, formerly called Grolier, as the oldest authentic manuscript in America] (PDF) (Press release) (in Spanish). Mexico: INAH. Retrieved 2018-09-22.
- Yates 2012.
- Mexican historians prove authenticity of looted ancient Mayan text
- Oldest surviving Maya book declared authentic
- Gent 1971.
- Vail 2006, p. 498.
- Vail 2006, p. 498. Coe 1973a, p. 1502.
- Coe 1973a, p. 5.
- Coe 1973a, pp. 152–153.
- Vail 2006, p. 501.
- Milbrath 2002, pp. 52, 57.
- Coe, Michael; Stephen Houston; Mary Miller; Karl Taube (2015). "The Fourth Maya Codex". Maya Archaeology (PDF). 3. San Francisco, California, US: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. pp. 116–167. ISBN 9780985931704. p118
- Newitz 2016.
- Coe et al 2015, p. 117.
- Coe 1973a, p. 150.
- Coe et al 2015, pp. 117, 119.
- Coe, Michael; Stephen Houston; Mary Miller; Karl Taube (2015). "The Fourth Maya Codex". Maya Archaeology (PDF). 3. San Francisco, California, US: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. pp. 116–167. ISBN 9780985931704. p. 119.
- Baudez 2002, p. 12. Coe 1973b, pp. 8–11, 13, 16.
- Baudez 2002, p. 12. Coe 1973b, pp. 12, 15.
- Baudez 2002, p. 12.
- Coe 1973b, p. 17.
- Coe 1973a, p. 151.
- Milbrath 2002, p. 50
- Thompson 1975, p. 1.
- Gillian Kiley, 13th century Maya codex, long shrouded in controversy, proves genuine. September 7, 2016 - news.brown.edu
- Coe 1999, p. 200. Marhenke 2012.
- Milbrath 2002, p. 51.
- Markenke 2012. Yates 2012. Baudez 2002, p. 3.
- Vitelli 1977, p. 461.
- Marhenke 2012. Yates 2012. Johnston 1977.
- Ruvalcaba et al 2007, pp. 299–300.
- Baudez 2002, pp. 3, 18.
- Carlson 1983, pp. 44–50; Carlson 2013, p. 25.
- Lee, Jr., Thomas A. 1985, pp. 159–172
- Stuart 1986, pp. 164, 166–168
- Milbrath 2002, p. 52.
- Baudez 2002, p. 4.
- Grube 2012, pp. 21–22.
- Baudez 2002, pp. 4–5.
- Baudez 2002, p. 17.
- Houston, Baines and Cooper 2003, pp. 461, 466.
- Bower, Jessica (2016). "The Mayan written word, history, controversy, and library connections". The International Journal of the Book. 14 (3).
- Baudez 2002, p. 11.
- Zorich 2012, p. 29.
- Carlson 2013, p. 25.
- Kiley 2016.
- Love 2017
- Baudez 2002, pp. 11–12.
- Baudez 2002, p. 13.
- Baudez 2002, pp. 13, 15.
- Thompson 1975, p. 5.
- Coe et al 2015, p. 156.
- Milbrath 2002, p. 61.
- Ruvalcaba et al 2007, p. 299.
- Calvo del Castillo et al 2007, p. 3.
- Calvo del Castillo et al 2007, pp. 3–4.
- Calvo del Castillo, H.; J. L. Ruvalcaba Sil; T. Calderón; M.Vander Meeren; L. Sotelo (2007). "The Grolier Codex: A PIXE & RBS Study of the Possible Maya Document" (PDF). Proceedings of the XI International Conference on PIXE and its Analytical Applications Puebla, Mexico, May 25–29, 2007. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Retrieved 2013-04-18. p. 4
- Calvo del Castillo, H.; J. L. Ruvalcaba Sil; T. Calderón; M.Vander Meeren; L. Sotelo (2007). "The Grolier Codex: A PIXE & RBS Study of the Possible Maya Document" (PDF). Proceedings of the XI International Conference on PIXE and its Analytical Applications Puebla, Mexico, May 25–29, 2007. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Retrieved 2013-04-18. p. 4: "The presence of lapis-lazuli cannot be neither discarded nor assured"
- Mike Cummings, Authenticating the oldest book in the Americas. January 18, 2017 - news.yale.edu
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Grolier Codex.|
- Baudez, Claude-François (May–June 2002). "Venus y el Códice Grolier" (PDF). Arqueología Mexicana (in Spanish). Mexico City, Mexico: Editorial Raíces. X (55): 70–79. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-02-06.
- Bruhns, Karen Olsen (Winter 1977). Vitelli, Karen D., ed. "The Antiquities Market". Journal of Field Archaeology. Boston, Massachusetts, US: Association for Field Archaeology, Boston University. 4 (4): 459–472. doi:10.1179/009346977791490168. ISSN 2042-4582. JSTOR 529402. OCLC 51213011. (subscription required)
- Calvo del Castillo, H.; J. L. Ruvalcaba Sil; T. Calderón; M.Vander Meeren; L. Sotelo (2007). "The Grolier Codex: A PIXE & RBS Study of the Possible Maya Document" (PDF). Proceedings of the XI International Conference on PIXE and its Analytical Applications Puebla, Mexico, May 25–29, 2007. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Retrieved 2013-04-18.
- Carlson, John B. (1983). "The Grolier Codex: A Preliminary Report on the Content and Authenticity of a Thirteenth-Century Maya Venus Almanac". In Aveni, Anthony F.; Brotherston, Gordon. Calendars in Mesoamerica and Peru: Native American Computations of Time. 44 Congress of Americanists, Manchester 1982. Oxford, England: B.A.R. International Series 174. pp. 27–57. ISBN 0860542238.
- Carlson, John B. (2013). "The Twenty Masks of Venus: A Brief Report of Study and Commentary on the Thirteenth-Century Maya Grolier Codex, a Fragment of a 104-Year Hybrid-Style Maya Divinatory Venus Almanac". Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture. XXV: 25.
- Coe, Michael D. (1973a). The Maya Scribe and His World. New York, US: The Grolier Club. ISBN 0-8139-0568-0. LCCN 73-17731. OCLC 804680.
- Coe, Michael D. (1973b). "The Grolier Codex" (PDF). Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies (FAMSI). Retrieved 2013-04-15.
- Coe, Michael D. (1999). The Maya. Ancient peoples and places series (6th edition, fully revised and expanded ed.). London and New York: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28066-5. OCLC 59432778.
- Coe, Michael; Stephen Houston; Mary Miller; Karl Taube (2015). "The Fourth Maya Codex". Maya Archaeology (PDF). 3. San Francisco, California, US: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. pp. 116–167. ISBN 9780985931704.
- Gent, George (1971-04-21). "Manuscript Could Change Views of Mayas' Religion". The New York Times. New York. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- Grube, Nikolai (2012). Der Dresdner Maya-Kalender: Der vollständige Codex (in German). Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Verlag Herder. ISBN 978-345-1333323. OCLC 813926432.
- Houston, Stephen; John Baines; Jerrold Cooper (July 2003). "Last Writing: Script Obsolescence in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica". Comparative Studies in Society and History. Cambridge University Press. 45 (3). doi:10.1017/s0010417503000227. JSTOR 3879458. (subscription required)
- Johnston, Laurie (1977-12-13). "The Case of the Peripatetic 13th-Century Mayan Calendar Book". The New York Times. New York. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- Kiley, Gillian (7 September 2016). "13th century Maya codex, long shrouded in controversy, proves genuine". News from Brown. Providence, Rhode Island, US: Brown University. Retrieved 2016-09-08.
- Lee, Jr., Thomas A. (1985). Los Códices Mayas (EDICIÓN CONMEMORATIVA X ANNIVERSARIO ed.). Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas, Mexico: Fundación Arqueológica Nuevo Mundo, A.C., San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas & Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah & Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas.
- Love, Bruce (August 2017). "Authenticity of the Grolier Codex remains in doubt". Mexicon. 39 (4): 88–95.
- Marhenke, Randa (2012-02-15). "Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: The Ancient Maya Codices: The Grolier Codex". Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI).
See author's title page, last rev. date, & table of contents 
- Milbrath, Susan (Spring 2002). "New Questions Concerning the Authenticity of the Grolier Codex". Latin American Indian Literatures Journal: A Review of American Indian Texts and Studies. McKeesport, Pennsylvania, US: Penn State McKeesport. 18 (1): 50–61. ISSN 0888-5613. OCLC 108655687. Retrieved 2013-04-22.
- Newitz, Annalee (2016). "Confirmed: Mysterious ancient Maya book, Grolier Codex, is genuine: 900 year-old astronomy guide is oldest known book written in the Americas". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-09-12.
- Ruvalcaba, Jose Luis; Sandra Zetina; Helena Calvo del Castillo; Elsa Arroyo; Eumelia Hernández; Marie Van der Meeren; Laura Sotelo (2007). "The Grolier Codex: A Non Destructive Study of a Possible Maya Document using Imaging and Ion Beam Techniques". MRS Proceedings. Warrendale, Pennsylvania, US: Materials Research Society. 1047: 299–306. doi:10.1557/PROC-1047-Y06-07. ISSN 0272-9172. OCLC 423659624. (subscription required)
- Sharer, Robert J.; Loa P. Traxler (2006). The Ancient Maya (6th, fully revised ed.). Stanford, California, US: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-4817-9. OCLC 57577446.
- Stuart, George E. (1986). "Review of 'Los Codices Mayas'". Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture. IX (1–4): 164–176. ISSN 0190-0994. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- Thompson, J. Eric S. (1975). "The Grolier Codex" (PDF). Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility. Berkeley, California, US: University of California. Studies in Ancient Mesoamerica, II (27): 1–9. ISSN 0068-5933. OCLC 1087514. Retrieved 2013-04-18.
- Vail, Gabrielle (2006). "The Maya Codices". Annual Review of Anthropology. Palo Alto, California, US: Annual Reviews. 35: 497–519. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123324. ISSN 1545-4290. JSTOR 25064935. OCLC 103903925. (subscription required)
- Yates, Donna (2012). "Grolier Codex". Glasgow, Scotland: Trafficking Culture, University of Glasgow. Retrieved 2013-04-16.
- Zorich, Zach (November–December 2012). "The Maya Sense of Time". Archaeology. New York, US: Archaeological Institute of America. 65 (6): 25–29. doi:10.2307/41804605. ISSN 0003-8113. JSTOR 41804605. OCLC 815488306. (subscription required)
- High resolution photos of the Grolier Codex from the Justin Kerr Precolumbian Portfolio
- Mike Cummings, Authenticating the oldest book in the Americas. January 18, 2017 - news.yale.edu
- Gillian Kiley, 13th century Maya codex, long shrouded in controversy, proves genuine. September 7, 2016 - news.brown.edu