The British Museum is under fire for labelling Tibetan artefacts as originating from "Xizang," China’s term for the region, in its Silk Roads exhibition.
London, UK – The British Museum finds itself at the centre of a growing controversy over its labelling of Tibetan artefacts as originating from "Xizang," China’s official term for the region, during its Silk Roads exhibition. Tibetans and human rights advocates argue this decision echoes Beijing’s political agenda to rewrite Tibet’s historical and cultural identity, sparking widespread backlash.
The Silk Roads exhibition, showcasing artefacts from the ancient trade routes of the Silk Roads, prominently features numerous Tibetan pieces dating from the 5th to the 10th century. Yet, the decision to label these objects with "Xizang," instead of "Tibet," has drawn sharp criticism from Tibetans, who view the term as a tool of cultural erasure by the Chinese government.
The term "Xizang" emerged in the 1950s following China’s annexation of Tibet and has since been central to Beijing’s campaign to reshape global discourse on the region. Tibetans argue using this term endorses China’s claim over Tibet, undermining its distinct cultural and historical identity. Advocacy groups, including the Tibetan Community in Britain and the Global Alliance for Tibet and Persecuted Minorities, have condemned the British Museum’s decision as legitimizing Beijing’s efforts to control Tibet’s global narrative.
"This is not just about a word on a label," said Phuntsok Norbu, chairman of the Tibetan Community in Britain. "It is about the preservation of a culturethat has been systematically suppressed. The British Museum’s role in shaping global understandings iscritical, and adopting the term 'Xizang' is an affront to Tibet’s heritage."
The controversy extends beyond the British Museum. Earlier this year, the French Musée du Quai Branly-Jacques Chirac reversed its decision to use "Xizang" following public outcry. Other institutions, like the Musée Guimet in Paris, have held firm on using the term, demonstrating the global struggle over Tibet’s identity. Meanwhile, China has pressured countries like Nepal to officially refer to Tibet as "Xizang," aligning with its strategy to suppress Tibetan culture, language, and religion.
The British Museum has defended the term, claiming it reflects "the contemporary geographic terminology as defined by China." This justification has, predictably, been met with fierce criticism. Tsering Passang, founder of the Global Alliance for Tibet, called the decision "deeply offensive," accusing the museum of enabling China’s campaign to erase Tibet from the global cultural map.
"It is disheartening... ignore the political implications of adopting such terminology," Passang said. Critics argue museums and other international institutions have a responsibility to resist China’s attempts to rewrite Tibet’s history and minimize its unique identity. By using "Xizang," they risk becoming complicit in narratives threatening the preservation of Tibetan cultural sovereignty.
This terminology dispute highlights the urgent need for global cultural institutions to recognize and respect Tibet’s unique identity. For Tibetans and their allies, this is more than just semantics. It is about asserting the recognition of a culture facing existential threats. Advocacy groups are calling on the British Museum to revise its labelling practices, with some issuing firm statements urging all global institutions to resist Beijing’s coercive diplomacy.
"By standing up for Tibet, the world sends a clear message... cultural sovereignty cannot be rewritten by a powerful regime," Norbu stated firmly. “Tibet’s identity is not just a regional concern—it’s a global issue.” The fallout from this exhibition may resonate far beyond the walls of the museum, challenging the narratives projected by China and demanding accountability from institutions which wield significant influence over cultural heritage politics.
