When high-fashion styling meets ancient history, the consequences can be surprisingly contentious. Zendaya, accompanied by her renowned stylist Law Roach, recently turned heads at a London film premiere in an ivory Jacquemus halter gown, but it was her choice of jewellery that triggered significant controversy within academic and cultural circles. The actor wore a pair of gold disc earrings traced back to the first millennium BC, originating from the Ziwiye collection—a trove of ancient artefacts discovered in northwestern Iran. The jewellery, mounted with diamonds by London-based craftsman Glenn Spiro, was identified by Barron London, a gallery specialising in rare gems and historical pieces, which had posted images of Zendaya wearing the earrings on its Instagram account.
The Ziwiye hoard represents one of the most enigmatic and contested collections of ancient artefacts in the archaeological world. Believed to have been excavated in the 1940s outside Ziwiyeh Castle, the collection includes numerous precious items now dispersed across major museums globally, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. However, the circumstances surrounding the discovery and subsequent movement of these pieces remain murky at best. Peter Edwell, a professor of history and archaeology at Macquarie University in Sydney, emphasises that material from this era and region carries significant provenance complications. The archaeological record is incomplete and fragmented, leaving scholars unable to definitively trace how these items left Iran or whether they were obtained through legitimate means or colonial plunder.
The decision to incorporate ancient artefacts into contemporary fashion statements represents a troubling trend that extends beyond a single red carpet moment. Several archaeologists and cultural commentators have raised alarm about what they perceive as the commodification and fetishisation of history. Dr Z, an archaeologist and cultural commentator, characterises such appropriation as disrespectful to the cultures from which these items originated, potentially driving demand within the antiquities black market. When celebrities wear artefacts as accessories, they transform objects of historical and cultural significance into mere fashion statements, divorcing them from their original context and the communities they represent. This practice normalises the treatment of disputed historical materials as personal adornments rather than cultural heritage requiring careful stewardship and study.
The timing of Zendaya's jewellery choice carried particular weight given contemporary geopolitical tensions. Annelise Baer, an archaeologist and producer based in Los Angeles, noted that wearing ancient Iranian artefacts amid ongoing military conflict in the region amplified the insensitivity of the decision. The choice appeared particularly tone-deaf considering the historical relationship between Western acquisition of Middle Eastern artefacts and imperial conquest. Baer also contextualised the backlash within the broader landscape of racism the film's cast, including Zendaya and her co-star Lupita Nyong'o, has faced since their involvement was announced. The convergence of these factors—colonial provenance questions, ongoing geopolitical conflict, and documented prejudice—created a perfect storm of criticism that reverberated through social media and academic forums.
This incident was not isolated within the same promotional event. Anne Hathaway, Zendaya's co-star, appeared wearing a 17th-century ruby that held its own problematic history. The stone had allegedly been gifted by Mughal emperor Shah Jahangir to his son Shah Jahan, the renowned builder of the Taj Mahal. The simultaneous appearance of multiple historical artefacts as contemporary fashion accessories suggested a coordinated strategy by stylists to generate conversation through historical eclecticism. Yet this approach overlooks fundamental questions about cultural ownership, ethical acquisition, and the responsibility celebrities and their teams bear when interacting with disputed materials.
Red carpet fashion has undeniably evolved into a form of competitive cultural commentary, with stylists leveraging increasingly obscure and historically significant pieces to differentiate their clients and generate media discourse. The incorporation of ancient artefacts represents an escalation in this arms race, one that extends fashion beyond contemporary design into the realm of museum-quality antiquities. When celebrities wear such pieces, they implicitly position themselves within narratives of global history and cultural sophistication. However, this positioning comes at the cost of erasing the complex ethical questions embedded within these objects—questions about how they were obtained, who has the legitimate authority to possess them, and whether their removal from original geographical and cultural contexts serves scholarly or merely aesthetic purposes.
The academic community remains divided on the implications of mainstream visibility for these issues. Baer initially viewed the public attention as potentially beneficial, seeing an opportunity for broader discussion about antiquities ownership, provenance ethics, and the legacies of colonialism. She argued that mainstream awareness of these complexities could catalyse meaningful change in how cultural heritage is treated and valued. However, this perspective generated significant social media backlash, prompting her to restrict comments on her posts. The episode reveals deep fissures within contemporary discourse about how historical wrongs should be addressed and what role public figures should play in either perpetuating or challenging systems that privilege Western access to global cultural treasures.
Barron London attempted to navigate the controversy by acknowledging the tense atmosphere surrounding the choice while defending its business practices. The gallery's statement suggested awareness of the sensitivity but fell short of addressing fundamental questions about the appropriateness of framing disputed antiquities as fashion accessories. The silence from Zendaya's representatives, Law Roach, and Glenn Spiro speaks volumes about the reluctance of fashion industry figures to engage substantively with these ethical questions. This avoidance suggests that within high-end fashion circles, commercial opportunity takes precedence over cultural responsibility and archaeological ethics.
The broader pattern of wealthy individuals and celebrities acquiring ancient artefacts—whether for museums, private collections, or temporary fashion purposes—reflects persistent global inequalities in cultural ownership. Many developing nations, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, have lost significant portions of their cultural heritage to Western collectors and institutions over centuries. While museums like the Metropolitan Museum of Art now hold extensive collections and display materials from the Ziwiye hoard, questions persist about whether these repositories serve primarily as monuments to Western collecting practices or as genuine centres of scholarly and cultural exchange. When celebrities wear these same artefacts as temporary accessories, they complete a symbolic journey that began with colonial extraction: materials move from their original contexts to Western institutions and finally to individual bodies adorned for aesthetic effect.
For Malaysia and Southeast Asia, this incident carries particular resonance given the region's own complex history of cultural property displacement. Many Malaysian artefacts and sacred objects remain housed in European museums, a legacy of colonial administration that extends into contemporary art and antiquities markets. The normalisation of wearing ancient artefacts as fashion statements potentially normalises the entire system of Western access to global cultural materials. Regional policymakers and cultural authorities might view this incident as illustrative of broader patterns that justify efforts to repatriate cultural heritage and establish stricter frameworks around how historical materials can be utilised by commercial interests.
Looking forward, the controversy surrounding Zendaya's earrings may yet catalyse meaningful discussion about industry standards and ethical guidelines for high-end fashion engagement with historical materials. Whether luxury brands and stylists will develop protocols requiring provenance verification, consulted with affected communities, and ethical considerations remains uncertain. The fashion industry has successfully resisted substantive regulation on numerous fronts, and questions of cultural ethics represent another domain where commercial interests have historically prevailed. Yet growing public awareness, amplified through social media discussion following this incident, suggests that consumers may increasingly demand accountability from brands and individuals who choose to transform contested historical materials into temporary fashion statements.
