By John Q. Hosedrinker 
From 25 February, individuals holding dual nationality will be denied entry into the United Kingdom unless they present a British passport for travel. This new policy underscores the government’s intention to strengthen border controls. Consequently, citizens with multiple passports must ensure they possess and utilize their British passport when entering the UK.
Read the original article here
The British Museum has recently made a notable change in its ancient Middle East displays, opting to remove the label “Palestine” from maps depicting ancient cultural regions, instead using the term “Canaan” for the southern Levant during the later second millennium BC. This decision, according to a museum spokesperson, is about historical accuracy for the specific period shown. However, the move has sparked considerable discussion, with many feeling that the nuance of historical naming has been overshadowed by contemporary political realities.
The core of the matter seems to hinge on the interpretation of historical geographical terms versus modern political identities. While some argue that the term “Palestine” has a long and complex history associated with the region, dating back to Roman times and even earlier, others contend that its modern political connotation, particularly its association with current claims to land, is what the museum is trying to avoid legitimizing. The argument is that using “Palestine” in ancient contexts can inadvertently lend historical weight to contemporary political claims, which is seen by some as a misrepresentation of the past.
Indeed, the distinction between an ancient geographical region and a modern political entity is crucial. The concept of nation-states and fixed borders as we understand them today is a relatively recent historical development. Historically, peoples, ethnic groups, and political entities have been far more fluid and subject to change over millennia. Imposing modern notions of nationality and borders onto ancient history can lead to anachronisms and, as some suggest, can be deliberately manipulated for political purposes. The British Museum’s decision, from this perspective, is an attempt to preempt such misinterpretations by using terminology that is more chronologically precise for the ancient period.
The spokesperson’s emphasis on “Canaan” for the second millennium BC specifically addresses a particular period. The region has indeed been referred to by various names throughout history, reflecting the empires and peoples who have inhabited or controlled it. The name “Palestine” itself has a layered history, being used by the Romans, for instance, as “Syria Palaestina” after the suppression of Jewish revolts, intended as a punitive measure. However, the connection of this name to the region predates that as well, with Herodotus using a form of the name in the 5th century BCE. This long and varied usage has led to differing interpretations regarding its applicability to specific ancient periods.
The debate also touches upon the idea of “decolonizing history” by using the most appropriate names for a given era, akin to referring to Roman towns by their Roman names rather than their modern equivalents. This perspective suggests that using historically accurate designations for ancient periods is a way of correcting anachronistic impositions of modern names and narratives onto the past. It’s about presenting history as it was understood and named at the time, rather than retrofitting it with contemporary labels.
However, some argue that the museum’s move is not simply about decolonizing or clarifying historical nomenclature but is a direct response to the highly charged political landscape. The timing and the specific omission of “Palestine” are seen by some as a deliberate act to steer clear of validating current political narratives. The argument is that “Palestine,” as a distinct political identity and claim, is largely a 20th-century phenomenon, and therefore its use in ancient displays is fundamentally a-historical.
It’s also noted that the term “Palestine” was formally used in the 20th century for the British Mandate after World War I. Prior to that, the region was under Ottoman rule. The Roman renaming of Judea to “Syria Palaestina” around 135 CE, as a punishment, is a significant historical event that connects the name to the land, but it still refers to a specific historical context, not necessarily the entirety of its ancient history. The question arises as to why the museum previously used the term “Palestine” if it was deemed inaccurate for the ancient periods in question, leading to speculation about subtle forms of historical revisionism.
Ultimately, the British Museum’s decision highlights the perennial challenge of navigating historical representation in a world shaped by contemporary political sensitivities. While the museum emphasizes historical accuracy for the specific ancient period, the discussion surrounding the removal of “Palestine” underscores the complex interplay between history, geography, and modern political identity, demonstrating how even seemingly academic decisions can become subjects of intense debate.