The British Museum has removed references to “Palestine” from some of its exhibits, a move that Palestinian Ambassador to the UK Husam Zomlot has condemned as an "existential issue" for his people, revealing how cultural institutions serve to legitimize the ongoing dispossession of a people by controlling historical narratives.
The museum altered content in its Middle East galleries in February, following complaints regarding historical accuracy from the pro-Israel group UK Lawyers for Israel. These changes include using the term “Canaan” for the southern Levant in the later second millennium BCE on maps depicting ancient cultural regions. For maps showing modern boundaries, the museum now employs UN terminology, referring to Gaza, West Bank, Israel, and Jordan, while using “Palestinian” only as a cultural or ethnographic identifier where deemed appropriate. This selective application of terminology serves to obscure the continuous historical presence and political identity of Palestinians.
The historical record, as noted in reports, indicates that the Roman province of Judea was renamed “Syria-Palestina” in 135 CE after the Roman defeat of the Jewish Revolt led by Simon Bar-Kochba. The name “Palestine” is believed to have been chosen to echo the Philistines, a population that inhabited the region during the Iron Age, from 1200-586 BCE, and who are frequently mentioned in the Bible as adversaries of the Israelites. The museum's decision to selectively remove or redefine the term "Palestine" thus constitutes a deliberate re-framing of history, aligning with specific political interests.
The State's Role in Narrative Control
Following these changes, Ambassador Zomlot approached the museum in an attempt to persuade it to reverse its decisions. In March, he met with the museum’s director, Nicholas Cullinan, but Cullinan did not commit to fulfilling Zomlot’s request. This refusal prompted the ambassador to escalate his appeal to the British Foreign Office, seeking state intervention against what he perceives as an act of historical erasure.
Zomlot articulated the profound implications of these actions, stating, “For me, this is not only a political issue. This is not only a legal issue. This is not even just a historical issue. This is an existential issue. Because erasing our past is erasing our present.” His statement highlights the material impact of narrative control on the collective identity and political struggle of the Palestinian people, demonstrating how the control of history is integral to the maintenance of power and the perpetuation of dispossession.
The British government’s response, delivered through a spokesperson to The Guardian, was a classic liberal deflection: “Museums and galleries in the UK operate independently of the government, which means that decisions relating to the management of their collections are a matter for their trustees.” This claim of institutional independence, while technically true in a liberal framework, effectively shields the state from accountability for actions taken by cultural institutions that align with its broader foreign policy objectives and the interests of capital. By refusing to intervene, the state implicitly endorses the museum's actions, allowing the ideological apparatus to function unimpeded in shaping public perception and legitimizing existing power structures.
Cultural Hegemony and Dispossession
The pressure from a pro-Israel group, UK Lawyers for Israel, demonstrates how organized interests can influence cultural institutions to serve specific political agendas. The museum's subsequent changes, presented under the guise of "historical accuracy," align with efforts to diminish the historical claims of the Palestinian people, thereby reinforcing the narrative that supports their ongoing marginalization and dispossession. This is a clear instance of cultural hegemony at play, where dominant narratives are enforced through institutional means.
The British Museum, as a prominent cultural institution with an imperial legacy, plays a significant role in shaping public understanding of history. Its decision to alter historical references, particularly concerning a contested region, underscores how such institutions are not neutral arbiters of truth but active participants in the construction of narratives that can either challenge or uphold existing power dynamics. In this instance, the museum's actions, coupled with the state's refusal to intervene, serve to further entrench the historical erasure of Palestine, contributing to the ideological conditions that perpetuate the material conditions of the Palestinian people's struggle. The struggle for historical recognition, as articulated by Ambassador Zomlot, is thus inseparable from the broader struggle against dispossession and for self-determination.