Question

[1]
For decades, scholars of Mayan civilization viewed the glyphs carved into ancient stone monuments as purely astronomical tables or mystical symbols. This dominant theory, championed by the influential archaeologist J.E.S. Thompson, posited that the Maya were a peaceful, time-obsessed people whose writing did not record historical events or individuals.

[2]
Her breakthrough came while studying the stelae at Piedras Negras, a Maya site in Guatemala. She noticed that the monuments were dedicated in series, with each set spanning a period of about sixty years. By mapping the dates of these carvings against the life spans of average humans, Proskouriakoff deduced that the carvings actually told the historical stories of real rulers—recording births, accessions to the throne, and military victories.

[3]
As a result of this discovery, the decipherment of Maya writing accelerated rapidly. Scholars began to read the history of dynasties, warfare, and alliances, completely transforming our understanding of the Maya from a passive priestly class to a dynamic, politically complex society. Today, Proskouriakoff is recognized not only for her architectural drawings but for unlocking the human history of a lost empire.

[4]
This assumption began to crumble in the mid-twentieth century when Tatiana Proskouriakoff, an illustrator and self-taught scholar, applied a fresh perspective to the carvings. Rather than treating the glyphs as abstract cosmic calculations, she approached them with a keen eye for pattern recognition and architectural draftsmanship.

[5]
Indeed, the legacy of her research extends far beyond the walls of museums. The glyphs once deemed unreadable now speak in the voices of their creators, offering a rich narrative of Mayan life written by the Maya themselves.

For the sake of the logic and cohesion of this essay, where should Paragraph 4 be placed?