WHEN a museum alters a descriptor, it is never just about a word. It impacts memory, identity and who gets to belong in history. The row over the British Museum and its use of the term ‘Palestine’ has struck a nerve for that reason. Reports say that some gallery panels in its ancient Levant and Egypt sections were revised, with ‘Palestinian descent’ replaced by ‘Canaanite descent’ and parts of the eastern Mediterranean no longer labelled ‘Palestine’. The museum argued that the term, while widely used in scholarship since the 19th century, is no longer seen as historically neutral and is often understood as referring to a modern political territory. But critics fear that a people’s long presence is being quietly edited out. More than 5,000 people signed a petition calling for the changes to be reversed. Scholars defended the phrase ‘ancient Palestine’ as a valid academic term. Campaigners accused the museum of yielding to pressure after representations from UK Lawyers for Israel, a group that argued the word creates a “false impression of continuity”.

This matters because museums shape how millions understand the past. If terminology is adjusted after legal lobbying, even for technical reasons, transparency is vital. Otherwise, suspicion fills the gap. At the same time, clarity is needed. Historian William Dalrymple, who first criticised the move as “ridiculous”, later said reports that the museum had cancelled the name ‘Palestine’ altogether were wrong. After speaking to director Nicholas Cullinan, he relayed that only two panels had been amended during a routine refresh and that the museum is not removing references to Palestine. In fact, it currently hosts a display on Palestine and Gaza. The episode leaves uncomfortable questions. Why did this change happen quietly, and why did it take public outrage to clarify it? These are fraught times and under such circumstances cultural institutions must tread carefully and speak plainly. History deserves accuracy — and honesty.

Published in Dawn, February 18th, 2026