Question

Passage:
The decipherment of Maya hieroglyphs stands as one of the most significant intellectual triumphs of the twentieth century in the field of archaeology, yet it was delayed for decades by rigid institutional dogmatism. For much of the early twentieth century, the discipline of Maya studies was dominated by the eminent British archaeologist J. Eric S. Thompson. Thompson asserted that the glyphs were primarily ideographic and focused almost exclusively on astronomical observations, calendrical cycles, and esoteric religious concepts. Because of his towering reputation and institutional influence, Thompson’s view became the entrenched orthodoxy, effectively stifling alternative hypotheses and marginalizing scholars who proposed different interpretations.

The paradigm began to undergo a radical shift in the 1950s due to the independent, and initially highly controversial, work of the Russian linguist Yuri Knorozov. Working in relative isolation behind the Iron Curtain in Leningrad, Knorozov published a seminal paper in 1952 asserting that the Maya script was not purely ideographic, but rather a logosyllabic system—meaning it combined logograms (signs representing whole words or concepts) with phonetic signs representing distinct syllables. By systematically applying the principle of synharmony to the Landa alphabet (a flawed but crucial sixteenth-century transcription recorded by a Spanish bishop), Knorozov successfully read several words, proving beyond doubt that the glyphs recorded the spoken Maya language. Thompson fiercely attacked Knorozov’s methodology as Marxist propaganda, stalling widespread acceptance of the phonetic approach in Western academia for nearly two decades.

Simultaneously, a breakthrough in understanding the actual subject matter of the inscriptions occurred through the meticulous structural analysis of Tatiana Proskouriakoff. Examining a series of monumental stelae at the archaeological site of Piedras Negras, Proskouriakoff noticed that the dates carved on these monuments clustered in specific temporal patterns corresponding to the length of an average human lifespan. In 1960, she published her groundbreaking conclusion that the glyphs were historical records detailing the births, accessions to the throne, and conquests of specific Maya rulers, completely dismantling Thompson’s romantic vision of the Maya as a peaceful civilization obsessed solely with the passage of cosmic time.

Further structural insights were provided by Heinrich Berlin, who in 1958 identified what he termed 'emblem glyphs.' Berlin demonstrated that these specific, repetitive glyphic compounds functioned either as the proper names of Maya cities or as the official titles of the polities ruling them. Although Berlin initially left the exact linguistic reading of these glyphs open, his structural identification allowed scholars to map the geopolitical landscape of the Classic Maya period.

Question:
Based on the explicit information in the passage, match each of the following scholars to their specific contribution regarding the decipherment or interpretation of Maya hieroglyphs.