Introduction
This paper outlines the Palestine Project, led by master’s students at University College London’s (UCL) Institute of Archaeology (IoA), which aimed to decolonize the Petrie Palestinian Collection (PPC).Footnote 1 The authors – now alumni – are some of the initial circa 20 members of the project. We examine the project’s challenges and successes through the lens of decolonization. Catalyzed by Edward Said’s Orientalism,Footnote 2 we reflect on how Western institutions continue to benefit from collections acquired under colonial antiquities laws while failing to acknowledge their origins. This alienates contemporary source communities and demonstrates the necessity of a decolonizing initiative for the PPC. We argue such an initiative would need to disrupt current narratives to be effective, and we urge Western institutions to reconnect colonial-era collections with source communities, acknowledging the benefits they have gained from colonial acquisitions.Footnote 3
In the literature review, we outline the colonial history and decolonizing literature that demonstrate the necessity of the PPC’s decolonization. By contextualizing the colonial circumstances of the collection’s acquisition, we highlight how the antiquities frameworks of British Mandate Palestine facilitated the removal of Palestinian heritage to the United Kingdom. This is how the PPC, compiled during excavations located in and around contemporary Gaza overseen by Flinders Petrie in 1926–1939, could be “gifted” by Petrie to the IoA, which later became part of UCL in 1986.Footnote 4 Moreover, we summarize anticolonial literature relevant to the current treatment of the PPC, further emphasizing the need for a decolonizing initiative.
In “Origins of the student-led Palestine Project,” the specific factors which led our student group to establish the project are outlined. The IoA’s collections span a wide geographical range: “Europe, Africa, Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Pakistan, India, Mesoamerica, South America and the Caribbean.”Footnote 5 Though all merit critical engagement through a decolonizing lens, the project itself emerged in response to student protests against UCL’s connections to and investments in businesses linked to Israeli occupation and genocide.Footnote 6 It was the urgency of the situation in Gaza – identified as genocide by Palestinians on the ground and supported by investigations from organizations such as the UN and Amnesty International – set against what many in the group perceived to be UCL’s inadequate or absent stance that compelled us to apply what we had learned as students specifically to the PPC.Footnote 7
To elevate Palestinian voices and constructively reflect on the attempted decolonization of the PPC, we ground our reflections in Palestinian perspectives. In “Positionality and methodology,” the three Palestinian individuals who have interacted with the PPC and who were interviewed for this paper are introduced. We also disclose our positionality and outline methodological limitations.
Our reflections on the decolonizing project then focus on erasure and stewardship, specifically how the IoA’s lack of discussion on the PPC’s history contributes to its erasure and how institutional structures limit decolonization and Palestinian access to the PPC. In “Displayed PPC,” we assess the erasure of the IoA’s colonial acquisition, as well as the erasure of the collection’s connection to contemporary Palestine, from public displays. We provide an overview of our attempt to write additional text decals to address this erasure and reflect on the complications we experienced which indicated an unsatisfactory approach to decolonization at UCL. Similarly, in “Committing to Decolonization,” we further demonstrate a lack of commitment to changes that critically engage with the PPC, perpetuating erasure within the IoA and failing to facilitate an effective decolonizing initiative.
This leads us to reflect on factors within the current stewardship of the PPC that resulted in unsatisfactory decolonization work. In “Current control over collections,” we highlight how the IoA’s present structure and priorities, including a lack of resources for decolonization, had most likely hindered our efforts. We argue it is UCL’s responsibility to address these shortcomings. In “Access to the PPC,” we assess the activities we undertook to increase Palestinian access to the collection, aiming to counter the current lack of proactive and regular facilitation of access. Positive feedback from Palestinian participants reaffirms the need for greater access to the collection. This underscores the necessity for institutional change at the IoA for the decolonization of the PPC to succeed. We conclude by discussing the future stewardship of the PPC, largely deferring to the perspectives of the Palestinian interviewees.
Our reflections on the institutional response to our project hope to spark debate on how Western institutions should approach Palestinian heritage with a decolonial stance. However, we do not discuss the ethical concerns surrounding the funerary context of the PPC or how Petrie’s archaeological practice supported UCL academics in racist research by supplying human remains for study.Footnote 8 Although this is outside the scope of this paper, this is an avenue of research that should be expanded in the future.Footnote 9 This paper aims to highlight the neglect and exclusion of Palestinian heritage in the United Kingdom, as experienced in our project, and to address the gap in scholarly discussion regarding the decolonization of these collections. Such a gap has also been identified by other groups. Artists for Palestine UK, for example, an independent network of artists and cultural workers, has criticized institutions for silencing Palestinian perspectives.Footnote 10 Furthermore, groups like the Palestinian Collections Research Group at the University of Cambridge have identified the need for and begun recontextualization efforts.Footnote 11
We believe it is important for us to reflect on our experience attempting to decolonize a Palestinian collection and hope our reflections foster dialogue on Palestinian heritage and sovereignty, thereby increasing pressure on Western institutions like UCL to confront the contemporary effects of their colonial histories. While the decolonization of the PPC expresses solidarity with the broader struggle for Palestinian liberation within our own sphere of influence, we acknowledge it does not directly impact events on a global scale.Footnote 12 Decolonizing a Palestinian collection feels incomplete without the safety and freedom of Palestinians to access it – nor without the existence of a free, decolonized Palestine.
Literature review
The PPC’s removal from Palestine during British rule, and its consequent position as the IoA’s founding collection, provides an additional reason we felt our project was necessary.Footnote 13 “Colonial acquisition of the PPC” therefore outlines the legal circumstances in which the PPC was removed from Palestine and the part played by colonial antiquities frameworks in its acquisition by the IoA.
In “Ethics of colonial collections today,” we then examine scholarship on colonial collections relevant to decolonizing Palestinian heritage. This sets the stage for discussing the challenges of doing so within a Western institution hesitant to critique Israeli occupation, especially given UCL’s ties to Israel.Footnote 14 This allows us to highlight the inadequacy of the IoA’s current approach within decolonial frameworks.
Colonial acquisition of the PPC
The Palestine Exploration Fund, founded in 1865 by prominent members of British society, set out to survey Palestine at a time when the Ottomans controlled the region. After the Ottoman Empire’s collapse in 1917, British archaeology in Palestine expanded under the British Mandate, facilitating Western removal and distribution of archaeological material.Footnote 15 The 1919 Paris Peace Conference shaped new archaeological regulations later embedded in the 1922 Mandate. The Covenant of the League of Nations (ratified 28 June 1919) established the mandates system, in which Article 22 (Appendix 1) justified Western control over “less advanced” nations.Footnote 16
Article 21 (Appendix 2) of the British Mandate reinforced the 1920 Antiquities Ordinance, placing archaeological activity under the British-controlled Department of Antiquities (DoA).Footnote 17 British archaeologists removed cultural property from Palestine to Britain, disregarding Palestinian access or ownership. In 1918, the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem was established in Al-Quds with government backing, solidifying Britain’s role in a Western scholarly network in Palestine.Footnote 18
Western nations notably used archaeology as a scientific tool to advance political agendas, including Zionism.Footnote 19 This is critical to understanding the establishment of archaeological field methodologies in Palestine at the time. John Garstang, as director of the DoA, implemented the Antiquities Ordinance to protect archaeological sites in 1920.Footnote 20 However, this ordinance also placed ownership of cultural heritage under the Civil Government of Palestine; this was an extension of Western colonialism, dominated by British officials, many of whom supported Zionist settler-colonial ambitions.Footnote 21 Article 4 of the British Mandate (Appendix 3) reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to establishing a Jewish homeland, aligning with the 1917 Balfour Declaration.Footnote 22 While debates over implementation continued, Palestine’s strategic role in the British Empire was key. Anthropologist and Barnard professor Nadia Abu El-Haj highlights how archaeology legitimized Western and Zionist claims whilst dispossessing Palestinian communities. Israel later used excavations to reinforce nationalism and occupation.Footnote 23 While this is an important topic, this paper does not focus on Zionist archaeology and instead on our experience with UCL. We consequently defer to existing works in this field for further discussion.Footnote 24
Despite Western dominance, the Palestine Oriental Society and its journal provided a space where Palestinian scholars like Omar Eff. El-Barghuthy, Tewfiq Canaan, and Stephan Hanna Stephan could contribute between 1920 and 1938. However, the society remained under the control of the Associated British, French and American Schools, limiting true Palestinian self-determination in research.Footnote 25 This demonstrates how colonial rule ultimately restricted Palestinian ability to establish independent scholarly networks, leaving a gap in the cultural record and a lack of Palestinian-led research and publications from Mandate Palestine.Footnote 26
During the British Mandate, Western nations removed vast amounts of Palestinian archaeological material. The Mandate’s political structure promoted “openness” between European nations, extending to archaeology.Footnote 27 Petrie – previously focused on Egypt – turned to Palestine after Egypt restricted antiquities exports.Footnote 28 He excavated extensively from 1926 to 1939, collecting the PPC, which was later sent to London. Petrie gave around 20,000 items to Mortimer Wheeler’s newly formed IoA,Footnote 29 an act only legally possible under the colonial frameworks previously outlined in this section. This formed the PPC, which was housed, displayed, and generally kept intact as a teaching resource at the IoA, continuing after the IoA joined UCL in 1986.Footnote 30
Ethics of colonial collections today
In examining the colonial acquisition of the PPC, questions arise regarding the morality of the IoA’s ownership, particularly within current decolonial scholarship. One of the most important frameworks for understanding colonialism and the Middle East is Orientalism, a concept coined by Palestinian scholar Edward Said. His seminal 1978 book fundamentally reshaped postcolonial thought, demonstrating how Western institutions have canonized the “Orient” and shaped it as the inferior, exoticized opposite to the West.Footnote 31 Cultural and intellectual production was deeply tied to the justification and maintenance of Western colonial dominance, reinforcing ideas of Eastern inferiority and legitimizing imperial control. As observed in the introduction of The Selected Works of Edward Said, “political ideas of domination and colonisation can find their strength and justification in the production of cultural knowledge.”Footnote 32 Museums and universities portray themselves as centers of such knowledge production but have historically been complicit in sustaining colonial ideologies.Footnote 33 Said also acknowledges the “vilification that any outspoken supporter of Palestinian self-determination earns for” themselves.Footnote 34 As this paper will demonstrate, the struggles encountered in working with the PPC exemplify how Orientalist legacies persist within Western institutions, limiting genuine engagement with Palestinian cultural heritage.
Museums and collectors, as custodians of cultural memory, shape how history is understood.Footnote 35 Frantz Fanon explores power and memory through an anticolonial lens. His work offers a framework for understanding colonial amnesia, arguing colonial powers engaged in selective remembering, erasing or minimizing their exploitation to maintain cultural and moral dominance.Footnote 36 Though he does not discuss museums, his ideas apply to Western institutions with colonial collections.Footnote 37 Such institutions reinforce colonial amnesia by presenting sanitized narratives of collections which prioritize aesthetic value to obscure histories of violence and dispossession. Far from passive repositories, they actively uphold colonial legacies through curatorial choices.Footnote 38
This can be remedied by reconnecting collections to their “source community,” a term popularized by Peers and Brown, which refers to the people from whom collections originate. Peers and Brown describe the relation between museums and source communities as a “two-way process, with information about historic artefacts now being returned to source communities, and with community members working with museums to record their perspectives on the continuing meanings of these artefacts.”Footnote 39 Such collaborative engagement can allow a shift from authoritative, colonial-era interpretations to source community–based knowledge production.
As Andrea Wallace states, however, “understandings or interpretations of ‘decolonization’ can vary by discipline or cultural context… Within heritage management practices, postcolonial and decolonial theories are generally used to deconstruct the ordering of collections built upon systems of personal ownership, exclusion, and oppression, both historic and ongoing.”Footnote 40 Notable examples include the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian working with Indigenous groups on sacred object storage,Footnote 41 the Horniman Museum’s transfer of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria, and the Peabody Museum’s repatriation of human remains under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.Footnote 42
However, progress regarding the Middle East remains limited, partly due to Western scholarship’s temporal distortion of the area and its archaeology.Footnote 43 This reinforces Orientalist views of Middle Eastern ancient cultures as “orphaned cultures.”Footnote 44 Terms used in Western scholarship like “Mesopotamia” for Iraq and “the Levant” for Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine, rather than Indigenous and contemporary names, detach the region from its history.Footnote 45 Such dissociation supports the notion that antiquities represent a shared human past and should be globally dispersed, legitimizing colonial systems like the British Mandate and justifying the expropriation of cultural property to Western institutions.Footnote 46 We reject universalist claims, such as James Cuno’s,Footnote 47 that separate cultural property from Indigeneity. Palestinians have lived on their land for centuries and maintain deep ties to their heritage, which must be recognized in its physical, spiritual, and ancestral significance today.
Building on the colonial histories of many Western heritage institutions, modern culture professor Ariella Azoulay argues for unlearning imperial history by reconnecting objects to their colonial context.Footnote 48 She warns decolonial efforts can uphold colonial structures if they fail to critically engage with and dismantle them. Scholars Tuck and Yang echo this, highlighting how settler intellectuals in Western institutions often co-opt decolonial discourse, reducing it to a metaphor.Footnote 49 True decolonization requires disruptive action, yet many efforts merely virtue-signal, a phenomenon they call “moves to innocence.”Footnote 50 These actions recenter whiteness, soothe settler guilt, and secure a settler future rather than an Indigenous one.Footnote 51 This critique is especially relevant to Palestine, where settlers remain on Palestinian land.Footnote 52 We build on Azoulay’s and Tuck and Yang’s theories to show how institutions like UCL perpetuate colonial frameworks.Footnote 53
When collaborating with UCL, we repeatedly questioned whether radical change was possible to truly decolonize the space and collection. Sumaya Kassim highlights the limitations of working within Western frameworks, drawing from her experience decolonizing a museum as an external collaborator. She co-curated #ThePastIsNow at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, an exhibition intended to challenge colonial history in “new and challenging ways.”Footnote 54 However, like Tuck and Yang, Kassim warns colonial institutions risk co-opting decolonialization without structural change. Decolonization goes beyond representation; it demands museums relinquish power and invest in meaningful transformation.Footnote 55
Origins of the student-led Palestine Project
In May 2024, a group of MA Museum Studies students at UCL’s IoA formed the Palestine Project.Footnote 56 During our first seven months as students, we had participated in courses which reinforced the importance of addressing colonial origins of museum collections. We were taught about the responsibility of cultural institutions to act with transparency and in collaboration with source communities but did not see that practice reflected at the IoA, despite working with a colonially acquired collection from Palestine.
We began the project by issuing a statement (Appendix 4) to the IoA’s director, which outlined our concerns and called for institutional accountability. We then met with academic staff, collections staff, and the director to see how we could enact the changes we viewed as necessary. Our initial demands to the IoA were as follows:
-
1. The IoA will acknowledge its historic involvement in British colonialism in Palestine and recognize Flinders Petrie’s legacy of promoting eugenics and using unethical standards of archaeology in Palestine.
-
2. The IoA will commit to addressing its history in classes, on its website, in the Leventis Gallery, and in collections storerooms, making the connections between the PPC and modern-day Palestine clear.
-
3. The IoA will create educational materials about the PPC and engage in workshops and outreach programs.
We approached the IoA with demands for change, hoping it would take initiative with our support. As we were graduating, we wanted to see the IoA independently develop a plan for decolonizing projects beyond the PPC. We had focused on the PPC due to the ongoing genocide of Palestinians as well as the destruction of Palestinian heritage, particularly in Gaza.Footnote 57 Notably, sites like Tell el-’Ajjul – one of the sites of the PPC’s excavation – have been targeted by Israel.Footnote 58
Our actions coincided with wider protests at UCL, including the 2024 student encampment for Palestine.Footnote 59 Pro-Palestine encampments are a form of dissent which occupies a space in protest of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.Footnote 60 The UCL encampment challenged the university to divest from Israeli companies and companies complicit in violence against Palestinians, condemn Israeli war crimes, and pledge to rebuild Gazan universities.Footnote 61 Globally, protests faced repression, including surveillance and legal actions against students.Footnote 62
Realities of the project
As previously outlined, our first point of contact in facilitating change within the IoA was its director and staff. We had initially expected the IoA to drive a decolonizing initiative, especially as we were a student group. In practice, we found that much of the project’s work was drafted or driven by our student group.
Throughout collaborative work with the IoA, agreement over the particulars of our group’s desired actions fluctuated. Nevertheless, through continuous negotiation, plans and actions developed. For reasons not specifically disclosed to us, however, products of work approved by the IoA – work produced by our group or work developed with IoA staff – were sometimes required to be checked by unknown central management within UCL. Though the IoA falls under the jurisdiction of the Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences, which then answers to the UCL President & Provost’s office, it was not communicated to us exactly why our work required approval outside the IoA.Footnote 63 This was unexpected, as according to some staff, this was not the norm. Work undergoing review by central management was held for extensive periods without explanation and edited without consultation. We found this unsurprising as our aim of championing Palestinian self-determination did not align with UCL’s stance.
UCL’s response to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians differed to their response to other global violence, leading to Palestinian students having to advocate for themselves and push for recognition.Footnote 64 As a Palestinian student, Nadine A, who we interviewed highlighted: “we tried to speak to the management about how they could support their students… they didn’t believe that they should take a political stand, whereas we would look up what they said when it was Ukraine, and it was very much a political stand.”Footnote 65 Nadine A also described how central management made “Muslim and Palestinian students” feel like “outcasts.”Footnote 66 The lack of immediate institutional support reflects a broader issue of selective solidarity in the West.Footnote 67
As decolonizing work developed, this shifted our project’s initial goals into the following activities:
-
• A statement in collaboration with the IoA which would announce a decolonizing project and voice support for Palestine
-
• Decolonial materials for the Museum Studies curriculum
-
• Additional text in the IoA’s Leventis Gallery to provide more contextual and critical information on the PPC
-
• Handling sessions, especially at the UCL encampment
-
• Collaboration with other professionals on related exhibitions
-
• Seeking IoA scholarship funding for Palestinian students
These attempted activities will form the basis of our case study. While we set out to achieve each goal, we were often limited by bureaucracy embedded into university operations that were exacerbated by the political landscape in 2024.
Through the method outlined in the following section, this paper seeks to critically reflect on the successes and barriers experienced by the project. This analysis highlights how barriers encountered throughout the project were symptomatic of systemic issues within Western cultural heritage institutions, which continue to perpetuate exclusion and inequitable access to cultural heritage. We demonstrate how harm is caused by the Western tendency to focus on methods of artefact study over the rights and cultural continuity of the people and land from which objects originate.Footnote 68
Positionality and methodology
We are an all-female group of former IoA students who approached UCL’s colonial legacies from within the institution. Our group comes from diverse backgrounds, with some members having direct experiences of occupation and colonialism. However, we all predominantly experience life from a British, Canadian, and American context. While we are writing about Palestine, we are not Palestinian ourselves. This is reflective of the lack of Palestinian students and staff at the IoA and by extension our project. We acknowledge that we approach this topic with an innate cultural and gender bias, with preconceptions that impact how we understand certain issues. This influenced our decision to conduct interviews with Palestinians, highlighting Palestinian opinions on the PPC’s management.Footnote 69
Our aim is not to impose our own interpretations on Palestinian heritage but to critically examine the issues we experienced and ground these in perspectives shared by Palestinians we interviewed. We chose not to seek Palestinian co-authors as we did not want to have someone sign their name to the original project if they had not participated in the project’s decision making. This paper does not aim to speak for all Palestinians on their heritage, nor on behalf of the individuals that were interviewed. Rather, as we had a privileged position of access to the PPC, we aim to assess current IoA activity.
Nevertheless, the absence of Palestinian co-authors remains a central limitation of this paper. There is knowledge and lived experience that those of us who are not Palestinian simply cannot access. The impact of this absence is hard to measure precisely because of this. Notably, the original project, which was also developed without Palestinian involvement, is subject to the same critique. It is therefore important to acknowledge that this paper and the original project were shaped by some of the same issues that we identify in “Reflections on stewardship of the PPC.”
However, there are constructive ways this gap could be addressed in the future. As suggested in “Reflections on future stewardship,” a dedicated scholarship for Palestinian students at the IoA would be a significant step, offering not only access to their heritage but an opportunity to lead in its care and curation. Moving from being merely “invited in” to shaping decisions and stewardship would help rectify the absence of Palestinian voices and support a more equitable future for the management of the PPC.
The interviews we conducted with Palestinians followed a semi-structured format, a “data collection strategy in which the researcher asks informants a series of predetermined but open-ended questions” and “there is no fixed range of responses to each question.”Footnote 70 This allowed us to set specific parameters by which we wanted the conversation to be directed, while also being informed by the direction that interviewees wished to take. This was important to us as we felt UCL often removed the agency of Palestinians to tell their own stories and their ability to self-determine their heritage.
We conducted three interviews with Palestinian individuals connected to UCL. Two interviewees were non-IoA students at UCL when we conducted our project, one of whom wishes to remain anonymous (who henceforth elected to be referred to as C) and Nadine A, a female UCL alumna who was studying at UCL when the student-led Palestine Project was initiated. The third interview conducted for this paper was with Hooda Shawa, a Palestinian writer of young adult literature. Shawa is a member of the curatorial team at the Palestinian Museum in Birzeit, which seeks to access the PPC as part of the production of an exhibition at the museum. Further information about the exhibition, with the working title Unearthed: A Colonial History of Archaeology in Gaza during the British Mandate, is expected to be released in 2026.
Interviewees were given the option to decide their level of anonymity. While we felt it was important to highlight and credit the participation of those who wished to be recognized, we were also aware of the adverse effects of speaking out for a free Palestine. Practices used by oral history informed our choice to offer anonymity, as oral history has regularly been used for activism and to collect the experiences of marginalized communities.Footnote 71
In January 2025, we held interviews in varying contexts; two were conducted online via Teams and one in-person. They were recorded digitally and adhered to the relevant ethical interviewing practices, including those of the Oral History Society.Footnote 72 Each interview was 0.5–1.5 hours long and was structured around four key themes: the interviewees’ experiences accessing the PPC, their experiences of institutional colonialism, their opinions on the current treatment of the PPC, and their perspectives on future use and ownership of the PPC. These themes were designed to guide the interviews to reflect on the interviewees’ experience with UCL and the management of the PPC.
Notably, the sample size of interviewees was small. This cannot hope to capture the vast range of perspectives Palestinians may have on the treatment of their heritage. Given our focus on the PPC and the restricted number of Palestinian individuals who had interacted with it and were willing to be interviewed, our sample size was limited. It is also worth noting that interviewees were not financially compensated as we did not have funding to produce this paper. As authors, we are not being paid and were not compensated for much of the work produced during the Palestine Project. Though the interviewees were informed that they would not be remunerated beforehand through a participation agreement, compensation for their contribution is missing. This is especially true as the interviewee who chose to remain anonymous will not receive public credit for their contribution.Footnote 73
Reflections on erasure
Throughout our project, we found that the IoA’s colonial history, the cultural connection of the PPC to contemporary Palestinians, and UCL’s benefit in possessing the PPC were repeatedly obfuscated. This allowed UCL to evade responsibility for decolonizing the PPC.
This section discusses our experience of erasure in the display of the PPC, in the production of a decolonizing statement to be published on the IoA’s website, and in producing materials for the IoA’s curriculum. Such “colonial amnesia” enables institutions to justify inaction by denying the need for decolonization.Footnote 74
Displayed PPC
Here we discuss our experience trying to decolonize the displayed elements of the PPC in the A.G. Leventis Gallery of Cypriot and Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology (the Gallery), in which we had identified a lack of acknowledgement of the PPC’s colonial history and connection to Palestine. To champion the Palestinian right to self-determination, we needed to address the erasure of Palestine in the Gallery to reconnect the Palestinian community to their heritage at UCL.
As discussed in “Ethics of colonial collections today,” ancient Palestinian heritage is often disregarded as being specifically Palestinian by Western institutions. This disregard is used to maintain Western claims on colonized heritage and often manifests as a “neutral” perspective.Footnote 75 A notable counterpoint to this erasure is the exhibition being developed at the Palestinian Museum in Birzeit, which has requested use of the PPC, as introduced in “Methodology.” This request demonstrates a living, contemporary connection between Palestinian people and the PPC, contradicting the idea that this heritage exists as an “orphaned culture” and in a historical vacuum.Footnote 76
As the Gallery is the IoA’s most public-facing exhibition space, it is critical that it accurately reflects the IoA’s origins. The current labeling fails to provide transparency regarding the PPC’s colonial history or Palestinian origins. In Shawa’s first visit to the Gallery in 2021, she noted the word “Palestine” was replaced with the term “Levant” in multiple places, homogenizing many countries in the area and removing agency from Palestine.Footnote 77 Additionally, when objects are labeled as hailing from sites like Tell el-‘Ajjul, there is no indication these sites are in Palestine, despite the land being referred to as Palestine, both now and at the time of excavation (Figure 1.).Footnote 78
Object text accompanying A.G. Leventis Gallery of Cypriot and Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology. UCL Institute of Archaeology, London. The text identifies sites such as Tell el-‘Ajjul without clearly referencing that they are in Palestine.
Figure 1. Long description
The top of the frame shows physical artifacts including a small square block labeled 56, a clear acrylic stand, and fragments of glazed pottery with green and yellow patterns. Below these is a large beige placard with black text organized into two main columns.
Left Column:
* Heading: The Roman Period (37 B C – A D 324).
* Item 46: Large ceramic storage jar from Tell Jemmeh. Reference E X X X V I dot 49 forward slash 12.
* Item 47: Group of ivory playing dice from Tell el-Ajjul Cemetery 200. Reference E X V I a dot 3 forward slash 1.
* Item 48: Bronze coins issued by Porcius Festus, Procurator of Judea during the reign of Nero (A D 59 – 62) from Tell Fara. References E V I I I dot 5 forward slash 1, E V I I I dot 37 forward slash 13, E V I I I dot 37 forward slash 15.
* Items 49-50: Ceramic juglets from Tell Fara Areas A N and A E. References E V I I I dot 11 forward slash 4, E V I I I dot 6 forward slash 7.
Right Column:
* Heading: The Byzantine Period (A D 324-638).
* Item 51: Marble colonette capital from a small church altar from Tell Jemmeh. Reference E X X X V I dot 49 forward slash 74.
* Heading: T H E I S L A M I C W O R L D (A D 638 - 1516).
* Item 52: Ceramic oil lamps from Tell el-Ajjul. References E X V I dot 1 forward slash 5, E X V I dot 4 forward slash 1, E X V I dot 1 forward slash 3.
* Item 53: Glass bowls and perfume vessel fragments from Tell el-Ajjul. Lists 13 reference codes starting with E X V I dot 2.
* Items 54-55: Glazed bowls from Tell el-Ajjul. Lists 12 reference codes starting with E X V I dot 1.
Shawa additionally found the use of the term “Levant” strange as neither Petrie nor his student Olga Tufnell used the term to refer to Palestine when referencing the collection.Footnote 79 Notably, the PPC was originally situated in the “Palestine Gallery.”Footnote 80 Shawa reflects that “although it is common practice for museums to rethink and redress their labelling practices, it is ironic that such a blatant erasure of a vast body of material has taken place.” This is something Shawa considers a “reflection of continued colonial amnesia and systematic cultural erasure” of Palestine.Footnote 81
One of the scarce references to Palestine in the Gallery is in the description of how the PPC came to the IoA in 1936 as a “gift from Sir Flinders Petrie of his Palestinian material” (Figure 2.).Footnote 82 This “gift” was only possible due to antiquities laws established by the British when occupying Palestine, as outlined in “Colonial acquisition of the PPC.” The lack of context about the circumstances of the PPC’s acquisition is problematic as it sanitizes the realities of the IoA‘s ownership of the collection and of colonial archaeology.Footnote 83 These objects were not obtained through forms of cultural exchange but rather through a colonially exploitative framework (Figure 3.).Footnote 84
Wall text accompanying A.G. Leventis Gallery of Cypriot and Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology. UCL Institute of Archaeology, London. The text states that the PPC was a ‘gift from’ Petrie.
Wall text accompanying A.G. Leventis Gallery of Cypriot and Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology. UCL Institute of Archaeology, London. The text discusses the influence of cross-cultural contact on the ancient objects exhibited at their original time of use. The context of the IoA’s colonial acquisition of the objects, however, is not mentioned in the Gallery.
Figure 3. Long description
The sign is organized into three vertical sections.
At the top, the title reads The Eastern Mediterranean Crossroads of Cultures in bold brown text. Below it, a sub-header states that the maritime landscape is key to understanding the development of the Mediterranean world and can cause isolation or insularity.
In the center is a map of the Eastern Mediterranean. Landmasses are tan and water is light blue. Labels include Greece and the Aegean Sea to the West, Anatolia to the North, The Levant to the East, and Egypt to the South. The islands of Crete, Rhodes, and Cyprus are positioned in the Mediterranean Sea. A scale bar and compass rose are at the bottom-left of the map.
The bottom section contains two paragraphs of text. The first explains that the region provided opportunities for cross-cultural contact and economic growth, noting that Cyprus lies at the heart of these meeting points. The second paragraph describes trade in luxury goods like textiles, glass, and oils, and raw materials like wood and copper. It mentions that these are known through ancient texts and pottery vessels.
In the bottom-right corner is a photo of a footed ceramic bowl. The vessel is decorated with horizontal bands and a central frieze featuring stylized brown and orange floral or star-like motifs separated by vertical lines.
In response to these issues, as the revision of the Gallery’s entire labeling would not fit into the IoA’s budget, the production of additional panels discussing the PPC was recommended. However, there was concern among IoA staff that panels discussing the PPC would also require corresponding panels discussing issues in Cyprus, Greece, and the wider area exhibited in the Gallery. The Gallery’s sponsorship by the A.G. Leventis Foundation may explain a lack of specific attention to Palestine on display as their mission has a strong focus on Greece and Cyprus.Footnote 85 To Shawa, the story of Palestine in the Gallery feels whitewashed because it is “a space where Palestinian artefacts have been displaced, demoted, and marginalised amongst an amalgamation of collections that prioritise a Eurocentric model of… Levantisim. I’m coining this word now. The term Levant is ancient … However, … in the contemporary conditions of today, it’s used … to mask Palestinians.”Footnote 86
This issue relates to a larger systemic issue: a lack of funding in heritage and the consequent need to source external funding, often from an individual or foundation with a specific purpose in mind. Though there is no publicly available funding breakdown, it can be assumed the IoA is likely to suffer from systemic humanities underfunding.Footnote 87 However, after lobbying our case to the IoA, the installation of temporary text focused on Palestine in the form of window decals was approved. Potential funding for the decals was found in the remaining budget at the end of the IoA’s financial year, highlighting a lack of funding in the core IoA budget for decolonization. This demonstrates a failure to anticipate and therefore prioritize decolonization.
Nonetheless, we then produced an initial draft text for the Gallery that critically reflected on the history of the PPC. The draft aimed to use language more suitable for those without pre-existing knowledge of the archaeological and colonial history of Palestine. This was developed in conjunction with a student focus group conducted on 24 June 2024; through IoA staff, we were able to secure funding from the UCL Eugenics Legacy Education Project to run the focus group because of Petrie’s links to eugenics.Footnote 88 The group of IoA and non-IoA students analyzed the interpretation in the Gallery and suggested improvements.Footnote 89
The initial draft was then reviewed by IoA staff. To the Palestine Project student group, staffs’ response to critical elements regarding decolonization decentered them. Throughout the summer of 2024, in working for these elements to be retained, we found dialogue and editing procedures were often tense and draining. Though on a smaller scale, we felt our experience collaborating with the IoA mirrored that of Kassim. Kassim’s curator group faced institutional resistance after submitting exhibition text critiquing imperial structures and a white Western-centered approach. Like us, they received edits in the same “neutral voice” they had critiqued.Footnote 90 A member of our drafting group, from a historically colonized community and part of the global majority, found this process particularly distressing. This was because, to progress the text to a point that aligned with the critically reflective findings of the focus group, we had to continuously provide education on decolonial and antiracist practice during drafting sessions with the IoA. This occurred, for example, in identifying Petrie’s practice of providing human remains for eugenics as racist, or in identifying the act of colonial occupation as violence in itself. This may highlight the need for increased resources for decolonial work at the IoA, a subject that is discussed further in “Current control over collections.”
A final decal text was agreed upon by the student group and IoA staff in August 2024. However, we were then made aware the text could not be installed without approval from central UCL management. While we were able to challenge certain restrictions on the decals through dialogue with the IoA, UCL central management did not communicate with the group. The edits received from central management in February 2025 were disappointing; they removed acknowledgement that the IoA and wider UCL continues to reap cultural and academic benefits – both past and present – from Palestinian heritage obtained during the British Mandate. They were also hesitant to explicitly link the PPC to modern-day Palestine and to link Petrie to the group of eugenicists at UCL. This failure to address the current erasure in the Gallery demonstrates the institutional fear of change when it moves from metaphorical to disrupting current problematic practices.Footnote 91
We chose not to proceed with the decal installation using the text edited by UCL as we had been unable to engage in dialogue with central UCL groups. This was because neither the groups’ identities nor their reasoning had been disclosed. After pursuing updates, we were informed by the IoA that we could challenge the edits, but with no guarantee of what would be deemed acceptable. We felt the assessment of our text had not been transparent, removing agency and pressuring us to compromise on its decolonial aspects just so other important aspects of the discussion might be displayed.
We felt this would be best resolved through direct dialogue with central UCL; in June 2025, we wrote to UCL via staff at the IoA. Our letter challenged the exclusion of each sentence that we believed was important and proposed text for the decals that was largely the same as the original. This was supplemented by a supporting letter from the UCL Eugenics Legacy Education Project, as they had provided the compensation to the focus group participants that had initially informed the decals. In July 2025, we received a response from UCL accepting the decal text we had proposed. As of July 2026, the decals are yet to be installed. The IoA have not proactively communicated regarding progress, however, after we regularly contacted the IoA for updates, sign off to fund the decals’ installation was confirmed in July 2026. We therefore expect the decals to be available for public viewing in the near future.
Committing to decolonisation
In June 2024, we drafted a statement for the IoA to publish about our work, aiming to solidify and publicize a commitment to decolonization. This intended to ensure decolonizing efforts continued beyond our graduation, to demonstrate institutional support for the wider student movement, and to make the project public. While we successfully collaborated with the IoA to create a statement both parties agreed upon, it was later altered by unknown individuals, with no invitation extended to our group to collaborate. It was then agreed for the altered statement to be posted on the IoA’s website (Appendix 5).Footnote 92
The statement was significantly shortened, and key aspects were removed. This included mentions of the project being student-led, staff support for Palestine, a critically reflective tone on the British Mandate, support for Palestinian scholarships, and details of our project. The most striking change was the reduction in length, which limited the scope of the project for which the IoA could be held accountable. By removing the mention of solidarity with the student encampment at UCL, the statement fails to acknowledge that decolonization of Palestinian heritage cannot be separated from present-day oppression.Footnote 93
Nevertheless, we felt the release of a statement committing to a decolonizing project was better than no commitment at all. In her interview, Shawa reflected that the statement was a step in the right direction but emphasized the need for an action plan to move beyond tokenism.Footnote 94 UCL’s approach reflects decolonial writers like Azoulay who critique tokenistic actions that uphold existing power structures.Footnote 95 In editing the statement, UCL could position itself as progressive while avoiding the radical change and loss of power that decolonization demands. Without sustained action to challenge fundamental narratives, such efforts remain performative and ineffectual.Footnote 96
In contrast, the materials we produced for an IoA course’s curriculum could be designed with more critical freedom as they were overseen by supportive staff. The materials encouraged students to think critically about the collection, with their purpose being to educate IoA students who used the PPC on its colonial history. While these resources could contribute to decolonial discourse at the IoA, they were less directly critical of UCL. Notably, some work – the critical tours of the Gallery and Petrie Museum that had been designed by the group – were not delivered in the planned manner. Furthermore, we note the materials were only shared more widely within the IoA when a staff member questioned the IoA’s accountability following the publication of the online decolonizing statement. This lack of initiative indicates that UCL’s approach to decolonial efforts is highly controlled – or at least that such efforts are not prioritized within the IoA – meaning decolonial narratives remain contained rather than widely acknowledged. While the materials produced were valuable, there is a sense the IoA have positioned them as a stand-in for meaningful engagement with decolonization, given the unaddressed structural changes to the PPC’s current stewardship and display. This emphasizes the need for the IoA to implement decolonizing work that is disruptive to its current narratives which perpetuate the erasure of the PPC’s connection to Palestine and its colonial acquisition.
The erasure of Palestinian heritage at the IoA reflects the colonial foundations of the institution itself. Markedly, the IoA and UCL have benefited from the colonial acquisition of the PPC in using it as a learning resource.Footnote 97 Nadine A remarked, “institutions in the West have a very clever way of hiding their colonial history.” Reflecting on the collection, she observed that its current treatment “showed how little regard there was for the history of the places these items came from.”Footnote 98 Without a foundational acknowledgement of these issues, meaningful reparative action remains impossible.
Reflections on stewardship of the PPC
Our project’s challenges highlight the need for a shift in the stewardship of the PPC. Decision making at the IoA must be re-evaluated to ensure more equitable governance. This section critiques current structures of control over and access to the PPC that undermine decolonization and Palestinian agency.
Current control over collections
The IoA’s collection of over 80,000 objects is managed by a small number of individuals. According to the IoA’s website, this includes “archaeological materials… and other objects from a range of periods across Europe, Africa, Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Pakistan, India, Mesoamerica, South America and the Caribbean.”Footnote 99 Given the extent of the collections, it seems unlikely that only a small team could hope to have sufficient time and expertise to steward the collections in a manner consistent with decolonial frameworks; additional support is required.Footnote 100 Furthermore, a handful of staff members disconnected from source communities, especially in the case of communities that experienced or are experiencing colonial violence, would struggle to make decisions about the collection on behalf of the many communities represented.
This should be considered because parts of the collections, like the PPC, were originally excavated in circumstances facilitated by violent colonial occupation.Footnote 101 As Shawa states, this means the PPC is an instance of “Palestinian lost cultural heritage and ancient history,” because within the IoA there are currently no means for the Palestinian community to exert decision-making power over the PPC.Footnote 102 This perpetuates the disconnect between Palestinian cultural heritage in the PPC and Palestinians that was created during the British Mandate.Footnote 103
The IoA therefore has a responsibility to reconnect the PPC with Palestinian communities, which would challenge the colonial origins of this collection and create a potential decolonial future. However, there are barriers created by a lack of resources for IoA staff to undertake decolonial work in addition to their current responsibilities. This is due to complexities with funding, as identified in “Displayed PPC,” in addition to decolonization not being prioritized, as evidenced by what we felt was a reliance on student pressure to drive the project. Though resources for basic physical care of the collections are a necessity, the need for a decolonial approach to the IoA collections cannot be ignored by those who have monetary decision-making power at UCL. As C emphasized, “as of this point in time, the artefacts are just sitting there, as in they’re being looked after, but they need to be appreciated.”Footnote 104 This highlights the need for UCL to fund collections management practices where collections are not alienated from their origins.Footnote 105
Access to the PPC
One of our central aims was to increase Palestinian access to the PPC. Access to heritage held in Western institutions is essential for their corresponding communities, enabling critical engagement with legacies of colonialism to contest narratives of erasure.Footnote 106 We worked to achieve this by running a show-and-tell at the UCL encampment for Palestine using selected objects from the PPC, as well as initiating object handling sessions at the IoA which were open to the public. Unsuccessfully, we sought to introduce a scholarship for Palestinians at the IoA which could have facilitated Indigenous knowledge production.
It was integral for us to run a session at the UCL encampment, bringing more awareness of the PPC to students advocating for the Palestinian cause. Planning this session required careful negotiation with the IoA to ensure adherence to museum professional standards, ensuring the collection’s safety and preventing adverse impacts.Footnote 107 Typically, the IoA has not proactively and regularly highlighted the existence of the PPC to Palestinians. While the IoA facilitated the show-and-tell session as part of decolonial efforts, we were informed that UCL central management, upon learning of the session, forbade further engagement with the encampment. This reflected UCL’s broader aversion to being perceived as supporting a decolonized Palestine, despite holding and benefiting from objects excavated in Palestine, as outlined in “Colonial acquisition of the PPC.”
From speaking with students who attended our session – Palestinian students included – we learned many were unaware the IoA held such a significant collection of Palestinian objects. As C conveyed, “[the PPC] was there the whole time… I had no prior knowledge of it, it was hidden within… your archaeology department.” “You guys looked after it well, but until [the show and tell], it wasn’t known about.”Footnote 108 With the session, we could support the students advocating for university divestment and Palestinian liberation by facilitating their ability to engage with the collection. As C said: “treasuring history like this, and respecting it, and presenting it in the encampment which is already an environment where people have a greater goal in mind and they’re fighting for the right cause – it all came together quite nicely.”Footnote 109 The positive feedback from the session demonstrates the benefit of reconnecting the PPC with Palestinians.Footnote 110
In addition to the show-and-tell session, we initiated handling sessions which would take place at the IoA. Holding the sessions at the IoA meant more objects would be available for use, as the risks involved with the transportation of objects would be mitigated. Sessions that were originally planned for the summer of 2024 were proposed, organized, and marketed to Palestinians in London. However, due to staff illnesses and conflicting schedules, the sessions had to be postponed. Following this, we were informed we needed to hand over these plans to staff. It was confirmed that two handling sessions took place: one run by IoA staff and another with Dima Srouji, a Palestinian architect and artist from the Royal College of Art (who is also a member of the curatorial team of the same exhibition at the Palestinian Museum as Shawa). Since we were not present, having already graduated, we cannot speak to the value of these sessions to attendees.
We believe the success of these initiatives relies on their continued and proactive implementation where the IoA takes responsibility for engaging Palestinian communities. This shift in an aspect of the PPC’s use should create an environment where Palestinians have reliable access to their cultural heritage. It is not lost on us that we as students and the IoA staff (non-Palestinians) were the ones facilitating and controlling the access Palestinians had to their cultural heritage.
To challenge this and support Palestinian agency over the collection, our initial letter to the IoA’s director requested the establishment of a Palestinian scholarship fund at the IoA. This mirrored the encampment’s demands of UCL but aimed to be IoA-specific. Similarly, Shawa expressed that “UCL has an ethical obligation to support and enhance the right of Palestinians to access their cultural heritage.”Footnote 111 If students are the ones who are readily able to access the PPC, UCL and the IoA should facilitate Palestinian students to have that position of privilege.
We were informed the only feasible way of establishing this sort of scholarship would be through a private external funder who could stipulate conditions of the donation to the IoA through UCL. After multiple requests and searching for funders, we concluded this was not a path UCL would continue to pursue, although we hope this will be revisited in the future (see “Reflections on future stewardship”).
The situation where access for Palestinians is facilitated only passively and on request is an absurdity that must be remedied. As stipulated by Petrie in his “gift” of the collection to the IoA, the PPC is still being used largely as a teaching collection.Footnote 112 We question this practice of a colonially acquired collection still being used with the same purpose as was standard for a man of Petrie’s time and beliefs. Although resource limitations may play a role in the lack of change to the PPC’s use, it is vital the IoA addresses these barriers and works to rid itself of its colonial legacies, more widely allowing access to the heritage it holds.
Concluding remarks
This final section summarizes our reflections on the attempted decolonizing initiative for the PPC. We also conclude with Palestinian-led perspectives on the future stewardship of the PPC, advocating for greater Palestinian agency in its management.
Overview of reflections
The IoA and UCL have benefited from the PPC in teaching and research, yet its connection to Palestine and Palestinians has been ignored. As outlined in “Colonial acquisition of the PPC,” the IoA’s acquisition of the collection was facilitated by colonial antiquities laws in British Mandate Palestine. Contemporary literature on decolonization in relation to Palestine and heritage collections more broadly, as discussed in “Ethics of colonial collections today,” suggests the IoA’s history must be confronted and reparative action taken.
The removal of the PPC, though legally sanctioned under the British Mandate as evidenced in “Colonial acquisition of the PPC,” does not absolve UCL of its ethical obligations. We wish to highlight how UCL should facilitate decolonization initiatives for an extensive Palestinian collection that should not have left Palestine. The resolution of internal issues caused by legacies of colonialism, such as improper resources for decolonization, should be a priority for UCL and the IoA, and not be the sole responsibility of Palestinian communities.
As an institution teaching decolonization, we felt the IoA’s failure to apply decolonizing principles to its own collections was hypocritical and highlighted the need for increased prioritization of decolonizing initiatives. Our project was influenced by this and catalyzed by the destruction of sites linked to the PPC,Footnote 113 the ongoing genocide and scholasticide in Gaza, as well as wider student protest at UCL against the university’s connections to companies linked to Israel’s genocide and occupation.Footnote 114
In attempting to enact decolonizing plans, we experienced push-back from the IoA and from central UCL management. While the IoA generally engaged in dialogue, UCL central management delayed progress by editing and holding drafts without explanation or consultation. In attempting to address the lack of transparency about the PPC in the Gallery, which perpetuates its treatment as an “orphaned culture,”Footnote 115 we found truly critical engagement with the PPC’s history was resisted. While advocating for UCL’s supposed commitments to decolonization at the IoA, we found that more public acknowledgement of efforts to decolonize were restricted, reducing UCL’s accountability.
This is particularly significant because our original work would, at the very least, have provided support for Palestine within a Western institution. However, we speculate the university’s refusal to condemn Israel may have affected the decolonizing work our student group was allowed to undertake. Erasure of Palestine and the IoA’s history, and the current structure of the IoA, limited our work, making it only partially disruptive to current practices. The impact of the decolonizing initiative is therefore performative unless significant sustained action is taken at the IoA.
This brought us to reflect on the ability of the IoA to decolonize effectively within its current circumstances and structure. We identified a lack of resources at the IoA to facilitate such efforts and the importance of providing funding for decolonization. Furthermore, the current stewardship of the PPC does not proactively and regularly facilitate Palestinian access to the collection. Positive Palestinian responses to our initiatives reiterated the need for greater Palestinian access to the collection.
Overall, the reluctance of UCL to enact change that truly challenged the status quo reveals a potentially false commitment to, or an improper understanding of, decolonization. Willingness to implement work less disruptive to problematic practices, like posting the edited decolonization statement, must be viewed with caution. Such statements should, but do not necessarily, mean change will occur. We therefore wish to convey that action should lead to real change and must not simply fall away as virtue-signaling.Footnote 116 In the final subsection, therefore, we put forward perspectives on the future stewardship of the PPC.
Reflections on future stewardship
Drawing on interviews, we emphasize the importance of Palestinian involvement in shaping the PPC’s future. As Shawa stated, we must work toward “a future that is more just and inclusive with regards to a cultural heritage that has been denied and alienated from its source community and the soils from which it was unearthed.”Footnote 117 Palestinian voices underscore the need for meaningful, respectful, and reparative management of Palestinian heritage.
Given the reflections in “Displayed PPC,” we first question whether the Gallery is the right place for the PPC’s display, a sentiment shared by Shawa.Footnote 118 As former Museum Studies students, we are aware of the barriers the IoA might face with regard to changing the storage and display of collections. However, our assessment of the Gallery reinforced the need for a purpose-built space for the PPC to address the issues identified.
To better display the PPC, UCL must ensure the exhibition, as Nadine A stated, provides “a brief history of this collection, where it’s come from, and everything in between.” Nadine A also believed accessibility should be expanded to include university students across London, fostering wider academic engagement. However, simply improving the display is not enough. Nadine A emphasized, “if the display is ramped up, you invite people to look at it,” underscoring the need for a well-executed marketing strategy to ensure updates reach the intended audiences.Footnote 119 Without such outreach, even the most significant improvements risk being overlooked.
Effort should also be made to increase Palestinian access to, and collaboration with, the PPC, as evidenced in this section. As Shawa stated, “UCL has an ethical obligation to… support studentships and critical scholarship, and finance research and partnerships with Palestinian universities and colleges.” Shawa further expressed the importance of collaboration with Palestinian institutions, like the IoA’s recent work with the Palestinian Museum in Birzeit to photograph objects in the collection. She also noted IoA staff had been “open to communication,” and this engagement should not only continue but deepen into continued institutional co-operation. Shawa urged such partnerships should grow to impact “cultural production in books, in scholarships, in academia, in a course perhaps,” due to the importance of knowledge production.Footnote 120
However, for scholarships and partnerships to be meaningful rather than tokenistic,Footnote 121 UCL must commit to divestment from companies connected to Israel and its occupation and genocide.Footnote 122 As Nadine A put it in relation to UCL’s current position: “I’ll invest in your killing, but if you don’t get killed, here’s a scholarship.”Footnote 123 Linked to this is those with whom the IoA collaborates and to whom it grants access to Palestinian heritage. Shawa strongly criticized UCL’s ties with Israeli universities, particularly its previously proposed collaboration with Ben Gurion University-Negev to publish a book on Gaza’s cultural heritage.Footnote 124 She stated: “It is ironic that a book on Tell el-‘Ajjul pottery, artefacts that were unearthed and removed from Gaza during the British occupation, will now find a partner in an Israeli institution that was built on confiscated lands.”Footnote 125 This contradiction highlights the urgent need for UCL to re-evaluate its priorities and investments. At a time when Palestinian scholars and students face scholasticide,Footnote 126 it is unacceptable that UCL fosters ties with Israeli institutions and fails to facilitate meaningful Palestinian access to the PPC.Footnote 127
We highlight, however, that collaboration alone with Palestinians is insufficient. Shawa was explicit in stating in the future she “would like to see some parts given back to Palestine,” questioning where these objects truly belong.Footnote 128 Nadine A shared a similar sentiment, arguing, “where else would look after them better other than in the hands of Palestinians – maybe back in Palestine?” She also reflected on the potential for a Palestinian Museum in London that could house the collection, noting, “if this really does go ahead – the way the collection is displayed is changing –… that is a catalyst for every other department… to rethink what they’re teaching.”Footnote 129 This perspective acknowledges the broader impact on Western institutions should the PPC’s role be reassessed. However, this cannot be a process dictated by Western institutions under a guise of decolonization, as discussed in “Committing to decolonization.” Nadine A warned against “framing it as we are giving this collection away to a Palestinian Museum… because we are now anti-colonial,” stressing UCL “needs to not use it as a PR stunt” but rather must “acknowledge the past and the history of UCL.”Footnote 130
As C suggested, “given that it is Palestinian history, maybe it is appropriate to give the sole responsibility of these objects to [UCL Students for Justice in Palestine] because they are the ones that are… fighting within the interests of that group of people.” While acknowledging the objects are currently housed at UCL and discussing the balance between those with archaeological interests in the collection and those advocating for the rights of Palestinians, C noted “perhaps they’re equally important.”Footnote 131 This marks a crucial shift from merely displaying and studying the collection to ensuring Palestinians themselves lead decisions about its future. At its core, the PPC cannot remain merely an object of academic interest – it must be treated as a living part of Palestinian history, with Palestinians themselves leading its future. Without decisive action, UCL risks reinforcing the colonial power structures it should be dismantling.
Governance structures must shift to ensure Palestinian decision-making authority over the PPC. To some degree, this calls for Indigenizing the PPC.Footnote 132 We can draw inspiration on Indigenizing a collection from the specific committees for iwi (i.e., local Māori tribes) employed at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Te Papa).Footnote 133 Te Papa has specifically sought to become a “bicultural institution,” whereby Te Papa has attempted to give significant agency in the stewardship of its collections to Māori stakeholders.Footnote 134
However, it is essential to recognize that decolonization strategies cannot be universally applied across Western institutions as if one model fits all; it would seem inappropriate for the IoA to attempt to become a “bicultural institution” like Te Papa given how separated it is both physically and culturally from the Palestinian experience. Each collection will present unique histories and needs; policies and plans must be developed carefully rather than implemented indiscriminately. Institutions must center the relevant source community when initiating their decolonial structures.Footnote 135 As interviewees stressed, the focus for UCL should be on genuine collaboration that ensures Palestinian contact with the PPC and agency over the PPC’s future, including increased education efforts and improved display. We suggest that structural changes are essential for UCL to move beyond gestures of inclusion to true decolonization.
We hope the project has highlighted this need for change. This paper is a means of shining a light on the issue of the PPC and maintaining discourse about Palestinian culture, which is targeted by Israel.Footnote 136 We note there remains much work to be done to expose the embedded colonialism underpinning cultural heritage institutions. Ultimately, this paper identifies the need for a complete rethinking of practices to center source communities in the stewardship of their cultural heritage.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739126100447.
Open access
