Early life Thompson was born on 31 December 1898 to George Thompson, a distinguished surgeon and
fellow of the
Royal College of Surgeons of England. Thompson was raised in the family home on
Harley Street in London. At the age of 14, he was sent to
Winchester College to receive an independent education. In 1915, shortly after the beginning of
World War I, Thompson used the assumed name "Neil Winslow" to join the
British Army while underage. A year into service, he was wounded and sent home to recover, first in Huddersfield, then in Seaford. He continued to serve in the
Coldstream Guards until the end of the war, ending his service as a commissioned officer. After the war Thompson left for
Argentina to work as a on a family cattle farm. When he returned to England in the early 1920s, he published his first article, on his experience in Argentina, in the
diocesan magazine the
Southwark Diocesan Gazette: "A Cowboy's Experience: Cattle Branding in the Argentine".
Education Thompson first considered a medical or political career. However, he later decided to study
anthropology at
Fitzwilliam House, Cambridge under
A. C. Haddon. With the completion of his degree in 1925 Thompson wrote to
Sylvanus Morley, the head of the
Carnegie Institution's project at
Chichen Itza, to ask for a job, inquiring about a field position. Morley accepted Thompson, most likely due to the fact that Thompson had previously taught himself to read Maya hieroglyphic dates, an accomplishment that was highly valued by Morley who also had a passion for Maya hieroglyphics.
Early career In 1926 Thompson arrived in the
Yucatan of Mexico under the direction of Morley to work at Chichen Itza. Here he started working on the
friezes of the Temple of the Warriors. In his autobiography,
Maya Archaeologist (1936), Thompson referred to the friezes as "a sort of giant jigsaw puzzle made worse by the fact the stones had been carved before being placed in position" accurately describing his first field experience. Within the next year, Thompson took post as the Assistant Curator at the
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. He would work there until 1935 when he left for a position at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. In 1926, while employed by the Field Museum, Thompson, under the supervision of
Thomas A. Joyce and the
British Museum, took part in an expedition to
Lubaantun in
British Honduras. It was the fieldwork at Lubaantun that led Thompson to disagree with Joyce's argument for the early "megalith" and "in-and-out" style of architectural
stratigraphy. Thompson argued that the "in-and-out" constructions were due to root action. With the help of Dr.
A.V. Kidder, Thompson (1943) wrote,
A Trial Survey of the Southern Maya Area, describing sites, such as Kaminaljuyui, Miraflores, and Copan. The article by Thompson assumes that the Maya were ultimately "peaceful" people since they lacked apparent defenses. He again stresses the widespread abandonment of ceremonial centers. He refers to the decline in arts and architecture as "Balkanization," a period which he views as experiencing political disintegration. He is also responsible for the long-held belief that the Aztecs, a "highly war-like" society according to the text, were directly involved in overthrowing what he thought were priest-rulers. Thompson was an accomplished author, publishing text books and findings in academic journals all over the United States. In his article,
A Survey of the North Maya Area, Thompson (1945) describes how researchers ought to employ a historical framework in archaeological studies. Additionally he details his finds in the Northern Maya region whilst making suggestions as to which types of ceramics were adopted. He identified phases: the formative period, the Initial Series, transition period, Mexican period, and Mexican absorption period, in Maya development, which set a precedent for the field in a number of ways. He theorized that the formative period began prior to A.D. 325 and was characterized by monochrome pottery in Chicanel style as well as giant pyramids. However he believed that the Maya did not have any carved stelae during this point in history. (Currently, it is believed that the Preclassic period actually occurred earlier than Thompson originally surmised.) The Initial Series period is presented as the Classic phase in Maya ceramic styles. He grouped them into two halves. The first half, 325 A.D. to 625, is characterized by basal flange bowls, and hieroglyphic stelae and lintels in mostly centralized areas. The second half, 625 A.D. to 900, is indicated by Z fine orange ware, and slate wares. In addition, Puuc, Chenes, and Rio Bec began to develop distinct styles. In the Transition period, 900 A.D. to 987, the Mayanist felt that there were no identifiable pottery types; he remarked on the fall of Chichen Itza, the abandonment of Puuc/Chenes/Rio Bec, and how Mexican influences were becoming stronger. According to Thompson, the Mexican period marked a decline in Maya civilization and ceramic styles due to conflict between Mesoamerican polities. He postulated that this era saw an end to hieroglyphic texts and increased worship of Mexican cosmology in place of Maya deities. The architectural styles were a mix of Tula and Maya features. He also claimed that the Mexican Absorption Period, 1204 A.D. to 1540, was characterized by the abandonment of most major cities, and that artistic innovations only were produced at low levels. Although Thompson has contributed a considerable amount of research to Mesoamerican studies, some of his interpretations have proven to be flawed, or inconsistent with new investigations. He maintained a venerable air of dissent in the archaeological community. Archaeologist Jeremiah Epstein posed that Thompson was wrong in his characterization of the Maya water transportation. He may have based his analysis on misinterpreted Spanish translations of the Motul Maya word for sail. "Bub" is a 16th-century Spanish interpretation, but may characterize Spanish vessels as opposed to Maya. Sails are not represented in prehistoric Mesoamerican iconography or texts, instead, it is theorized that canoes were used as a primary mode of water transportation for the ancient Maya. In fact, the only place where sails allegedly appear to be represented in prehistoric contexts are in graffiti at Tikal, however, further research poses that the illustration does not depict sails since there is no supplemental evidence of marine life or water sources (191). In addition, Maya numerous texts make no historical references to sails; they may not have been very utilitarian for the Maya, instead, the overwhelming majority of sources refer to canoes. It appears that Thompson did not consider a Post Conquest context for sails. Another author, Matthew Watson, portrays Thompson as a significant figure in Mesoamerican studies, however, in conjunction with Bruno Latour, the author believes that the famous Mayanist, along with
Merle Greene Robertson, and
Linda Schele used specific techniques known as "mechanical objectivity" and "trained judgement" which essentially reduces the diversity of Maya artistic traditions to that of modernist texts. This approach ignores a context-driven archaeological empiricism, adding to Thompson's many biased assumptions about how the ancient Maya lived. Moreover, archaeologist Traci Ardren feels that Thompson appeared to have made the mistake of conflating, or merging several cosmological entities into one. He famously misinterpreted the Maya Moon Goddess
Ix Chel, basing his research again on mistranslated Spanish texts. He believed as modern Maya do now that the Moon Goddess is the wife of the Sun God. Ardren's article claims, "Thompson interpreted the different glyphic phrases or names associated with the younger set as various tides for the same goddess, a deity he had already assumed to represent the moon". Ardren recognizes that the concept an all-encompassing, unifying female entity is directly influenced by western philosophical movements and androcentric bias. In tandem with other critics, Marshall J. Becker (1979) reviews Thompson's assumptions about Classic Maya settlement patterns and social structure and how his influence affected later theories regarding complexity in Mesoamerican culture. His article describes scholars, such as Gann, who critiqued Thompson's work. Gann and Thompson would later coauthor a text in which "Thompson stated...his popularized idea that the Maya lived in small agricultural settlements while the religious centers were uninhabited, while Gann suggested just the opposite. This divergence from the complex model, however, only appeared in Thompson's popular work." Furthermore, Becker characterizes more modern research as integrative, enabling studies to connect emerging insights about Maya urbanization/complexity with supportive archaeological evidence. Becker concludes that Thompson's research was both incomplete and incorrect, however, contemporary research is fighting to correct false claims in conjunction with other disciplines. The article distinguishes between two major theoretical concepts that dominated Maya archaeology for decades; Thompson's "priest-peasant" hypothesis and Borgheyi's concept of ranked social classes. Becker deconstructs Thompson's biased narratives, considering them to be a product of Thompson's English heritage and socio-political orientation which he later projected on to his research. Borgheyi's hypothesis is considered as more indicative of what Maya society might actually be like as opposed to Thompson whose claims were generally viewed as unfounded. Additionally, Becker mentions how defining "limits" often creates interpretive issues for scholars, it is an important observation in a whole range of archaeological settings; still affecting research today. Unfortunately, Thompson's assumptions about Maya elites were misguided. Husband and wife archaeologist team
Chase and
Chase discusses the significance of the
Caracol Archaeological Project which celebrated its 30th consecutive year of field research in 2014. Their research reveals the inconsistent interpretations of past Mayanists like Thompson. Thompson proposed that the Maya socially organized themselves around a two-tiered class system; a view prescribed by Harvard academic traditions. As of current, Caracol is recognized as being essential to evaluating urbanization and large-scale organization of Maya cities. Representing the Penn State academic tradition, Chase and Chase specifically describe how, upon their initial arrival at the site, two theoretical frameworks supported by Thompson and Borgheyi dominated Caracol, but were later rejected because of evidence stemming from long-term research. The authors found that divisions between elites and lower classes were not as stark or simple as previously suggested; moreover, there is evidence for a prominent middle-class which Thompson did not consider. Ultimately, Thompson did not have access to accurate population estimates or complete maps of settlement patterns, making it difficult for him to assess realistically the organizational principles of the Maya. Nonetheless, the Mayanist knew the limitations of archaeological research. One of Thompson's later articles "Estimates of Maya Population: Deranging Factors" is an attempt to identify deranging factors for population estimates of the ancient Maya. Determining population sizes is still an issue that plagues archaeologists (214). He drew attention to the ancient Maya tendency to "abandon" a hut after the death of its owner which may invariably skew population estimates. Additionally, Thompson wrote about the mobilizing capabilities of the ancient Maya and their long-standing tradition of moving from site to site in order to exploit local resources. Using the modern Maya as an example, he urged other archaeologists to consider hut-abandonment, and movement as major issues. In fact, determining whether or not a site is continuously occupied is still a huge part of archaeological limits today. Moreover, Thompson contended that house-moving was not a major issue for the Maya since building materials were abundant (215). In his conclusion he felt that mounds also may be an indication of decreased population sizes and a time of "growing unrest." Thompson's focus on the non-calendric hieroglyphs produced the monumental Carnegie monograph
Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Introduction. In his later years, he resisted the notion that the glyphs have a phonetic component, as put forward by Russian linguist
Yuri Knorozov. Thompson forcefully criticised Knorozov's research, which discouraged the majority of the field from taking the latter's work seriously. Thompson wrote about hieroglyphic writing in great detail. In
Systems of Hieroglyphic Writing in Middle America and Methods of Deciphering Them, the famed Mayanist critiqued some of the historical inconsistencies associated with
Diego de Landa's informants. He warned other archaeologists that the translation may be inaccurate since the informant through personal agency may have intentionally deceived the Spaniards or the informant did not supply material for reading Maya texts using syllabic systems because "none existed" at the time. He also scathingly claimed that Knorozov overwhelmingly misidentified Landa's hieroglyphs, adding to confusion. However it was later proven that many of Knorozov's speculations that the Maya language was phonetic and ideographic were accurate. Further discussed are the Nahuatl language and writing where he again asserted that the Maya did not have a phonetic language system; instead, he thought they only identified specific places and people (352). He thought that their writing had strong implications between good and bad. Furthermore, he characterized the preconquest Mexican codices as having a form of "rebus" writing (352-353). Thompson also expressed interest in the "divinatory" significance of the
Dresden and
Madrid codices (357). Thompson supported Morley's contention that the inscriptions were purely esoteric and religious texts, with no elements of history or politics, until the early 1960s, when the work of
Tatiana Proskouriakoff on the inscriptions of
Piedras Negras made him realise that his view had been "completely mistaken." Thompson continued to work with epigraphic and ethnohistoric problems until the end of his career. As he himself noted, he belonged to the last generation of "generalists", engaging in activities ranging from finding and mapping new sites and excavation to the study of Maya ceramics, art, iconography, epigraphy, and ethnology (on the side). Thompson sought to present the Maya to the general public with publications such as the
Rise and fall of the Maya Civilization (1954) and
Maya Hieroglyphs without Tears (1972).
Post-professional life ,
Essex. Thompson was awarded four honorary doctorates in three different countries, along with being awarded the
Order of Isabel la Catolica by Spain, the
Aztec Eagle by Mexico in 1965 and the
Order of the Quetzal by
Guatemala during his last trip to the Maya lands with the Queen of the United Kingdom in 1975. Thompson was knighted by
Queen Elizabeth II in 1975 a few days after his 76th birthday, becoming the first New World archaeologist to receive this honoured distinction. He died nine months later on 9 September 1975 in Cambridge, and was laid to rest in
Ashdon,
Essex, England. ==See also==