Tsering Dhundup
The British Museum in London is facing growing criticism over its use of the term “Xizang” in its Silk Roads exhibition, which Tibetan groups accuse of misrepresenting Tibetan heritage and supporting China’s narrative on Tibet.
Tibetan community leaders and human rights groups in England have demanded the removal of the term “Xizang Autonomous Region” from exhibition materials, arguing that it distorts Tibet’s cultural identity.
The controversy emerged from the museum’s use of the phrase “Tibet or Xizang Autonomous Region” in labels and catalogues describing Tibetan artefacts. Critics argue that this language disregards Tibet’s historical and political context, reinforcing the Chinese government’s narrative on Tibet.
Tsering Passang, Founder and Chairman of the Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities (GATPM), expressed concern, stating, “The British Museum’s adoption of ‘Xizang Autonomous Region’ misrepresents Tibet and contributes to efforts to erase Tibetan culture and history.”
The museum’s Silk Roads exhibition, which opened in September 2024, highlights cultural exchanges between Asia and Europe between 500 and 1000 CE. However, the terminology used to describe Tibetan objects has drawn sharp criticism. In a letter to the museum’s director, Dr. Nicholas Cullinan OBE, both GATPM and the Tibetan community in Britain requested that the term be removed, asserting that it legitimises China’s claims over Tibet.
“This issue is not just about language,” said Phuntsok Norbu, Chairman of the Tibetan Community in Britain. “It is about how history and culture are presented to the public. By using the term ‘Xizang,’ the museum diminishes Tibetan identity.”
Tibetan groups are now demanding immediate action, including the removal of the term “Xizang” from all materials, a public apology to the Tibetan community, and consultations with Tibetan scholars to ensure future exhibitions reflect Tibetan history properly. “The British Museum must ensure it does not become a platform for Chinese propaganda,” said Passang. “This is a matter of respect for Tibetan culture and history.”
In its response to the initial complaint, the British Museum defended the use of “Tibet or Xizang Autonomous Region,” claiming it reflects the current political designation of the region. However, critics argue that this position overlooks the political implications of such terminology. “This is not just about labels; it’s about the museum’s role in shaping global understanding of a culture under threat,” said Norbu. Tibetan groups are calling for the British Museum to uphold ethical standards in its exhibitions. “The museum has a responsibility to present history with integrity and accuracy,” Passang stated.
The incident also highlights a broader pattern of controversy regarding the representation of Tibet in international museums and institutions. This controversy is not isolated to the British Museum. Other prominent institutions, such as the Musée du Quai Branly and Musée Guimet in Paris, have similarly adopted terms like “Xizang” and “Himalayan World,” which critics argue dilute Tibetan identity and support Beijing’s political agenda.
In September, the Musée du Quai Branly in Paris responded to widespread public outcry by removing the term “Xizang” from its descriptions of Tibetan artefacts. The museum reverted to using “Tibet” in its catalogue and exhibition labels for items related to Tibet following pressure from the Tibetan community and human rights groups. However, the Musée Guimet has resisted similar demands. After 12 protests, the museum’s director, Yannick Lintz, refused to rename its exhibit “Himalayan World” to “Tibet,” despite calls from Tibetan advocates who contend that the current title undermines Tibet’s cultural and historical significance.
