British Museum Under Fire for Removing Historic References to "Palestine"

The British Museum’s decision to remove references to “Palestine” from its ancient Middle East displays underscores how curatorial language has become a proxy battleground for contemporary political disputes.

The museum confirmed that labels covering 1700-1500 BC were revised, replacing “Palestine” with “Canaan” and references to “Palestinian descent” with “Canaanite descent.”

A spokesperson said the term Palestine was not “meaningful” as a historical geographical descriptor in that context and added that it is “appropriate for the southern Levant” only in the later second millennium BC.

The institution also emphasized that it uses United Nations terminology for modern maps and applies “Palestinian” as a cultural or ethnographic identifier where relevant.

Curatorial Language Under Pressure

According to The Telegraph, the edits followed a letter from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), which argued that using “Palestine” in early-period exhibits risked “erasing the kingdoms of Israel and of Judea.”

The British Museum denied acting in response to the complaint.

The episode nevertheless fits a pattern described by advocacy groups and legal observers, where terminology disputes migrate from academic debate into institutional policy.

Dr. Marchella Ward of the Open University rejected the museum’s framing, stating she uses “ancient Palestine” in her research and would continue to do so.

Critics contend that the term has established scholarly usage across multiple disciplines, while defenders of the museum’s position argue that chronological precision in geographic nomenclature is standard curatorial practice.

Institutional Compliance Patterns

The European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) said UKLFI appears in 128 documented cases within a forthcoming database cataloging 900 incidents of alleged anti-Palestinian repression between January 2019 and August 2025.

Giovanni Fassina, ELSC’s executive director, said UKLFI’s engagement with the British Museum was “not surprising,” describing “a very clear pattern” of letters threatening legal action.

He added that “most of the time, the institutions comply with these requests or they may change their behaviour.”

Previous examples cited by Middle East Eye include Encyclopaedia Britannica’s amendments to children’s content earlier this month, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital’s removal of a Gaza-themed artwork in February 2023, and the Open University’s decision in January to drop “ancient Palestine” from future learning materials.

ELSC and the Public Interest Law Centre have submitted a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, alleging the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Heritage, Conflict, and Narrative Control

Ward linked the museum dispute to broader debates over cultural heritage during conflict. She referenced assessments that Israeli military operations in Gaza have fully or partially destroyed over 316 archaeological sites. A UN report published in July last year concluded that more than half of Gaza’s religious and cultural sites had been damaged.

The British Museum did not address those claims directly, maintaining its focus on chronological terminology standards.

The controversy illustrates the tightrope facing museums: balancing scholarly conventions, legal risk management, donor sensitivities, and public credibility.

In practice, label text, once a technical curatorial matter, now operates within a contested information environment where historical descriptors carry immediate political weight.