Erasing our past is erasing our present
In the months following Britain's formal recognition of Palestinian statehood, the British Museum quietly removed the word 'Palestine' from its ancient Levant galleries, replacing it with contemporary administrative terms. The Palestinian ambassador, discovering the changes, named them an act of historical erasure — a charge that has since drawn scholars, diplomats, and a pressure group into a dispute about who holds the authority to name the past. At its heart, this is an old and unresolved human question: whether the language we use to describe ancient worlds can ever be truly separated from the political worlds we inhabit now.
- Britain recognized Palestinian statehood in September 2025, yet within months its most prominent public museum was quietly stripping the word 'Palestine' from the very history that gives that name its depth.
- Palestinian Ambassador Husam Zomlot, confronting what he called deliberate historical erasure, met with museum leadership in March and left without a single commitment — a silence he described as untenable given the ongoing destruction of Palestinian archaeological heritage.
- The British Museum's flat denial that any removal occurred sits in direct tension with photographic evidence and its own earlier communications, leaving the institution's credibility visibly strained.
- Scholars of the ancient world have largely dismissed the historical justification offered — that 'Palestine' is anachronistic — pointing out that the name appears in Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman sources stretching back to the 12th century BC.
- With the ambassador now appealing to the Foreign Office and the government deflecting behind the museum's institutional independence, the dispute has no clear path to resolution and every sign of deepening.
When Britain formally recognized the state of Palestine in September 2025, it was understood as a diplomatic turning point. Months later, visitors to the British Museum's ancient Levant galleries would find the word 'Palestine' quietly gone — replaced by the administrative designations 'Gaza' and 'West Bank.' The timing, it would emerge, was not accidental.
Palestinian Ambassador Husam Zomlot discovered the changes and characterized them as historical erasure, particularly painful against the backdrop of what human rights organizations and a UN commission have described as genocide, and the destruction of Gaza City's main archaeological storage facility in September 2025 — thirty years of accumulated work, lost. He met with museum director Nicholas Cullinan and curators in late March but left without any commitment to restore the language. By April, he had written to Cullinan directly: without corrective action, further engagement would be inappropriate.
The British Museum responded by denying it had removed 'Palestine' at all — a claim that photographic evidence and its own prior statements appeared to contradict. The word does survive in some corners of the museum, but its systematic removal from the Levant galleries is documented. The changes, it emerged, followed concerns raised by UK Lawyers for Israel, who argued the museum was retroactively imposing a name onto periods when no such political entity existed. The museum told the group that audience testing had found the historic use of 'Palestine' was, in some circumstances, 'no longer meaningful.'
The specific edits are revealing. 'Palestinian' became 'Canaanite' in a panel on the Hyksos rulers of Egypt from the 18th to 16th centuries BC. References to Palestine and the Philistines were removed from text on the Phoenicians. Scholars have largely rejected the historical rationale: the name Palestine, in various forms, appears in Egyptian inscriptions from the 12th century BC and was used continuously by Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Marchella Ward of the Open University stated plainly that the decision had nothing to do with historical accuracy. Josephine Quinn of Cambridge warned that treating ancient names as though they directly validate or condemn present-day politics is both futile and distorting.
Zomlot has since appealed to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to intervene. The government has replied that museums operate independently, and that their collections are a matter for their trustees — a board chaired by former chancellor George Osborne. The ambassador is still waiting. He has framed the dispute in the starkest possible terms: to erase the past, he argues, is to erase the present.
In September 2025, Britain officially recognized the state of Palestine. Months later, the British Museum removed the word "Palestine" from its display panels about the ancient Levant, replacing it with the administrative terms "Gaza" and "West Bank." The timing was not coincidental, and it has now become the subject of a diplomatic dispute that sits at the intersection of history, politics, and what it means to name the past.
Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, discovered the changes and demanded they be reversed. He called the removals an act of historical erasure, particularly troubling given what he characterized as an ongoing campaign of destruction against Palestinians—a characterization supported by human rights organizations and a UN independent commission report that have described the situation as genocide. The ambassador also pointed to Israel's removal of archaeological artifacts from occupied Palestinian territories and the bombing of Gaza City's main storage facility for ancient artifacts in September 2025, which destroyed three decades of accumulated archaeological work.
Zomlot met with the British Museum's director, Nicholas Cullinan, and several curators on March 24, but left the meeting without any commitment to restore the removed language. He declined an offered tour of the museum, and on April 9 sent a letter to Cullinan stating that without corrective action or a clear commitment to address the issues, further engagement would be inappropriate. He indicated he would be willing to tour the museum once the necessary corrections had been made.
The British Museum responded with a statement asserting it had not removed the term "Palestine" and continued to refer to it across multiple galleries and on its website. This denial appeared to contradict photographic evidence of the changes and earlier remarks attributed to the museum itself. The word does remain on some exhibits, such as maps in the Egypt room, but it has been systematically removed from panels in the ancient Levant galleries.
The Telegraph first reported the changes on February 14, revealing they had followed concerns raised by UK Lawyers for Israel, a pressure group that argued the museum was retroactively applying the term "Palestine" to periods when no such entity existed, thereby obscuring the history of Israel and the Jewish people. The museum later told the group that audience testing had shown the historic use of "Palestine" was "in some circumstances no longer meaningful." Notably, the changes predated the pressure group's letter—Cullinan reportedly only saw it after the Telegraph story broke.
The specific alterations tell their own story. The word "Palestinian" was replaced with "Canaanite" in a panel about the Hyksos rulers of Egypt from the 18th to 16th centuries BC. References to Palestine and the Philistines were removed from text about the Phoenicians, with the new version describing them as "locally known as Canaanites." Scholars of the ancient world have largely rejected the need for these changes. Canaan appears infrequently in contemporary inscriptions from the late Bronze Age and typically refers to a variety of peoples and places along the Levantine coast. Peleset, believed to be the etymological root of Palestine, appears in Egyptian inscriptions from the 12th century BC referring to a community in the Southern Levant. The name Palestine, in various forms, was used by Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans across centuries and into the modern era.
Marchella Ward, a lecturer in classical studies at the Open University, stated flatly that the decision to remove Palestine had nothing to do with historical accuracy. Josephine Quinn, a professor of ancient history at Cambridge, went further, arguing that it is futile and distorting to treat ancient names as though they have direct relevance to contemporary politics, and that the troubling implication is that ancient categories somehow justify or excuse present-day atrocities.
Zomlot has since appealed to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to intervene. Though the British Museum is publicly funded, it operates under an independent board of trustees chaired by former Conservative chancellor George Osborne. The government has responded that museums in the UK operate independently and that decisions about their collections are a matter for their trustees. The ambassador remains waiting for a response from the Foreign Office, framing the dispute not merely as political or legal, but as existential—that erasing the past amounts to erasing the present.
Notable Quotes
The decision to remove Palestine has nothing to do with historical accuracy. It's no less accurate than any other term.— Marchella Ward, lecturer in classical studies, Open University
The worrying thing is the idea that ancient categories have any direct relevance to politics today, or that they can justify or excuse genocide in the contemporary world.— Josephine Quinn, professor of ancient history, Cambridge University
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter what label the museum uses for an ancient people? Aren't we talking about events thousands of years old?
Because naming is how we claim history. If you erase a people's name from the record, you're saying they didn't exist, or didn't matter. And when a government recognizes your state one month and a major institution removes your name the next, it sends a message about whose history counts.
But the museum says it's about accuracy—that Palestine didn't exist as a political entity back then.
Scholars disagree. The name appears in Egyptian inscriptions from the 12th century BC. It was used by multiple empires over centuries. The real question is: why change it now, after decades of using it? The timing suggests something other than scholarly concern.
What do you mean by the timing?
A pressure group called UK Lawyers for Israel raised objections, and the museum made changes. The museum claims the changes came first, but the letter came after. Either way, it happened right after Britain officially recognized Palestine as a state. That's not neutral.
So the ambassador sees this as political retaliation?
He sees it as erasure happening in real time. While Israel is destroying archaeological sites in Gaza, a major British institution is removing Palestinian names from ancient history. It's not just about the past—it's about who gets to exist in the present.
What happens next?
The ambassador is waiting for the Foreign Office to respond. But the government says museums are independent. So the British Museum can keep denying the changes while the evidence sits in photographs.