dangers of ‘‘archaeology’’ than it did harm by discouraging those biblical
scholars who were inclined to leap too hastily into the archaeological arena’
(Albright 1951 in Elliot 2003).
CONCLUSIONThe biblical lands were located in Palestine, Lebanon, and parts of Egypt,
Mesopotamia and Turkey. In them archaeology represented the search not
only for the classical past but, especially in Palestine and Lebanon, mainly
for evidence supporting the biblical account. Early research related to the
discovery of ancient documents. This obviously assisted philological studies,
especially after the breakthrough in reading the various scripts and lan-
guages in which texts had been written in the biblical lands. Translations of
Egyptian and cuneiform texts became a reality from the 1820s and the late
1830s respectively thanks to the eVorts of men such as the Frenchman,
Champollion (Chapters 3 and 5) and the Briton, Rawlinson, both of whom,
in addition to many others, provided the means to push back the frontiers
of written history in the area. Later on, research also focused on physical
monumental remains and the study of ancient geography. The antiquities
unearthed started toXesh out not only the philological knowledge but also
the very physical image of the Judeo-Christian past with objects, works of
art and monuments. Excavations helped to forge a historical imagination of
the topography of the Holy Land. Archaeology thus assisted in the creation
of a visual image for the religious accounts related in the Bible. The
intention to illustrate the biblical narrative with material objects and sites
was very much in the minds of the early archaeologists. However, it has
been argued that the public preferred the image of an imagined Holy Land
more than the facts oVered by the archaeologists, and this explained the
Wnancial diYculties of societies such as the Palestine Exploration Fund
(Bar-Yosef 2005: 177).
Biblical archaeology had similarities with informal imperial archaeology
elsewhere, where archaeology was used as one more tool in the imperialistic
zeal of the main imperial powers. These similarities result from the area
being divided between Britain and France, whose zones of inXuence resulted
in Palestine and Lebanon respectively in the core biblical lands, and a power
struggle in the others which resulted in Britain’s lead, ensuring a safe route
towards British India, in theWnal decades before the First World War. The
tensions between the empires were felt in archaeology, and examples of this,
164 Archaeology of Informal Imperialism