As journalists it is our role to question - to not accept everything that is presented - to investigate, within our means, and to try and find the truth.
Curators and journalists are often likened in that both are in the business of telling stories - backed by good, honest research.
But I wonder how often you query what is being proffered as fact in museums. Do you question the history books that have been accepted as accurate?
At this year's Museums Association conference in Glasgow many of the keynote addresses applauded museums for what they do. Often singled out was museums' scholarship - their knowledge base. Because they tell the truth they have authority.
In one session I attended we were told about a project being undertaken by the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge aimed at prisoners and about the Africanisation of Egypt. But if you visit the museum's newly redisplayed (in 2006) Egyptian galleries, Egypt is de-Africanised.
Sally-Ann Ashton, from the department of antiquities at the Fitzwilliam, said at the conference that an Africanised Egypt is how it should be presented. So why isn't it?
Her response: "It is difficult to do that in Cambridge." So is it more important to protect the sensibilities of the white academics and visitors to a museum in Cambridge, than to tell the truth?
And let's not pretend that the Fitzwilliam is alone. The Europeanisation of the history books has led to many omissions about the first great African civilisation the world has known.
It's mildly encouraging that the much discussed Tutankhamun blockbuster at the O2 Centre in Greenwich has maps showing that Egypt is in the African continent.
When I asked the outspoken Zahi Hawass, of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, about Europe trying to Mediterraneanise Ancient Egypt, he said Egypt should never be talked about as being outside Africa.
And if anyone is in any doubt as to who the Ancient Egyptians were, visit the O2 and take a look at the faces on the original treasures and then start telling the truth.
Curators and journalists are often likened in that both are in the business of telling stories - backed by good, honest research.
But I wonder how often you query what is being proffered as fact in museums. Do you question the history books that have been accepted as accurate?
At this year's Museums Association conference in Glasgow many of the keynote addresses applauded museums for what they do. Often singled out was museums' scholarship - their knowledge base. Because they tell the truth they have authority.
In one session I attended we were told about a project being undertaken by the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge aimed at prisoners and about the Africanisation of Egypt. But if you visit the museum's newly redisplayed (in 2006) Egyptian galleries, Egypt is de-Africanised.
Sally-Ann Ashton, from the department of antiquities at the Fitzwilliam, said at the conference that an Africanised Egypt is how it should be presented. So why isn't it?
Her response: "It is difficult to do that in Cambridge." So is it more important to protect the sensibilities of the white academics and visitors to a museum in Cambridge, than to tell the truth?
And let's not pretend that the Fitzwilliam is alone. The Europeanisation of the history books has led to many omissions about the first great African civilisation the world has known.
It's mildly encouraging that the much discussed Tutankhamun blockbuster at the O2 Centre in Greenwich has maps showing that Egypt is in the African continent.
When I asked the outspoken Zahi Hawass, of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, about Europe trying to Mediterraneanise Ancient Egypt, he said Egypt should never be talked about as being outside Africa.
And if anyone is in any doubt as to who the Ancient Egyptians were, visit the O2 and take a look at the faces on the original treasures and then start telling the truth.
