British Museum Removes “Palestine” from Ancient Middle East Displays Following Pressure by Pro-Israel Lawyers
London, UK — The British Museum has removed the word “Palestine” from several of its displays and online collections regarding the ancient Middle East, following a formal challenge by the advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). The changes, which include modifying labels that previously referred to “Palestinian descent,” have sparked a debate over historical accuracy, terminology, and the politicization of museum curation.
Deep Search: The Specific Changes and Rationale
The modifications specifically target displays in the museum’s Department of the Middle East, covering the period between approximately 1500 BC and 1700 BC.
Removal of “Palestine”: The term has been scrubbed from timelines, maps, and captions where it was used to describe the region during the Bronze and Iron Ages.
“Palestinian” to “Canaanite”: A notable change involves a panel on the Hyksos people—a dynasty of Levantine origin that ruled northern Egypt. The text, which previously described them as being of “Palestinian descent,” now identifies them as being of “Canaanite descent.”
UKLFI’s Role: UK Lawyers for Israel initiated the complaint, arguing that the use of “Palestine” for these periods is anachronistic. They contended that the name “Palestine” (derived from “Philistia”) was not widely applied to the interior of the region until the Roman era (specifically after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD) or, at the earliest, in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th century BC—long after the periods depicted in the displays.
Museum Statement: A British Museum spokesperson confirmed the edits, stating they were made following “audience research” and a review of historical accuracy. The museum noted that for the periods in question (late second millennium BC), terms like “Canaan” or the “southern Levant” are more historically precise than “Palestine.”
Background: The War of Words
The naming of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is one of the most contentious issues in archaeology and history, often serving as a proxy for modern political legitimacy.
The Case for “Canaan”: Historically, “Canaan” is the indigenous and biblical term used for the region during the Bronze Age (3300–1200 BC). Egyptian, Ugaritic, and biblical texts from this era consistently refer to the land as Canaan.
The Origins of “Palestine”: The name is linguistically linked to the “Philistines” (Peleset* in Egyptian records), a seafaring people who settled on the southern coast around the 12th century BC. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 450 BC) later used “Palaistine” as a geographical descriptor for the wider region.
Modern Implications: Pro-Israel groups argue that applying “Palestine” retroactively to ancient Jewish kingdoms (Israel and Judea) or pre-Israelite Canaan effectively erases Jewish history and implies a continuous Palestinian national identity that did not exist in antiquity. Conversely, many historians and archaeologists use “Palestine” as a neutral, conventional geographical term for the region—similar to how “Turkey” is often used to describe ancient Anatolian sites—without implying modern political statehood.
Objections: Erasure and Polticization
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from Palestinian advocates, historians, and those who view the move as a capitulation to political pressure.
Accusations of Erasure: Critics argue that removing “Palestine” is part of a broader effort to delegitimize Palestinian connection to the land. By treating the word as taboo even in a geographical context, they claim the museum is engaging in the “erasure” of Palestinian history.
Scholarly Dissent: Some academics maintain that “Palestine” has long been the standard scholarly convention for the region in neutral geographical terms, distinct from the modern State of Palestine. They argue that yielding to lobby groups sets a dangerous precedent where modern political sensitivities dictate the presentation of ancient history.
Inconsistency: Observers have pointed out potential inconsistencies, questioning whether the museum applies the same strict “anachronism” standard to other regions—for example, whether it avoids using “Turkey” or “France” when describing ancient civilizations located in those modern territories.
qudsnen.co
uklfi.com
timesofisrael.com
youtube.com
morningstaronline.co.uk
