Soru

Passage:
For more than a century, the study of Classic Maya hieroglyphic writing was dominated by competing theoretical assumptions regarding whether the script represented logographic ideograms, an alphabet, or a phonetic syllabary. In the early nineteenth century, the naturalist Constantine Rafinesque provided one of the earliest breakthroughs by analyzing illustrations of the Dresden Codex; in 1832, he correctly deduced that the bars and dots represented numbers in a base-twenty vigesimal system, with each dot representing one unit and each bar representing five. Decades later, Ernst Förstemann, a German librarian working directly with the same codex, decoded the complex Maya Long Count calendar system in 1887 and demonstrated that several folios recorded precise astronomical tables tracking the synodic periods of Venus.

Despite these mathematical and calendrical decipherments, twentieth-century scholarship stalled under the influential Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson, who adamantly maintained that non-calendrical glyphs were non-linguistic ideographs depicting mystical concepts and deities rather than actual spoken language or historical narratives. This prevailing view was fundamentally overturned by two distinct post-war discoveries. In 1952, the Soviet linguist Yuri Knorozov published a seminal paper applying comparative linguistics and statistical analysis to sixteenth-century transcriptions made by Bishop Diego de Landa. Knorozov demonstrated that the script operated primarily as a logo-syllabic system, proving that individual phonetic signs represented consonant-vowel syllables capable of being combined to spell words phonetically.

Six years later, in 1958, the German-Mexican epigrapher Heinrich Berlin made a crucial breakthrough in deciphering the historical content of monumental inscriptions. By analyzing recurrent glyphic compounds on stelae across the Maya lowlands, Berlin identified what he termed 'Emblem Glyphs'—specific glyphic configurations consisting of a variable main sign framed by consistent prefixes and affixes. Berlin established that these emblems did not represent individual gods, as Thompson had supposed, but rather functioned as specific political toponyms and dynastic titles denoting sovereign city-states. Together with Tatiana Proskouriakoff's subsequent identification of royal birth and accession dates, Berlin's structural discovery confirmed that the inscriptions recorded explicit historical chronicles of dynastic rule.

Based on the passage, match each scholar to the specific analytical contribution or decipherment explicitly attributed to them in the text.