Celebrity fashion has long been a arena for pushing boundaries and making bold statements, but a recent choice by actor Zendaya at a London film promotion event has crossed into territory that stretches far beyond the usual red carpet spectacle. Working with her renowned stylist Law Roach, Zendaya paired an ivory Jacquemus halter gown with statement earrings crafted from ancient Persian gold discs dating back to the first millennium BC. What might have been dismissed as merely another audacious accessory choice has instead become a flashpoint for serious discussions about archaeology, cultural preservation, and the troubling history of how wealthy nations and individuals acquire treasures from the Global South.
The earrings themselves represent a fascinating collision between fashion and antiquity. According to Barron London, the upmarket gallery that provided the pieces and publicised them on social media, the gold medallion plaques originated from the Ziwiye hoard, a collection of artefacts believed to have been excavated in the 1940s near Ziwiyeh Castle in northwestern Iran. These pieces have since been dispersed across the world's most prestigious institutions, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, where they serve as historical touchstones. The fact that Barron mounted these ancient discs with contemporary diamonds and presented them as jewellery for a celebrity to wear represents a fundamental shift in how we commodify historical objects.
The choice has provoked a sharp response from the archaeological community, particularly regarding questions of provenance and the murky origins of these artefacts. Peter Edwell, a professor of history and archaeology at Macquarie University in Sydney, characterises the situation as deeply problematic precisely because the archaeological context remains unclear. He explains that while such pieces populate museums and private collections globally, their acquisition histories are frequently shadowed by colonial plunder and unauthorised excavation. The honest assessment, Edwell suggests, is that looting and systematic theft likely played a central role in how these objects left Iran and entered Western markets and institutions.
Beyond the academic concerns lies a broader issue of cultural respect and the ethics of displaying another nation's heritage as personal adornment. Dr Z, an archaeologist and creator, has raised the troubling concept of "fetishising the past," arguing that wearing ancient artefacts as fashion accessories reduces complex historical narratives to mere aesthetic objects. This commodification, critics contend, risks fuelling the black market for antiquities by normalising the treatment of culturally significant objects as luxury goods to be bought, sold, and worn. The concern extends beyond simple disrespect—it potentially perpetuates the colonial dynamics through which Western institutions and wealthy individuals have historically claimed ownership of non-Western cultural treasures.
The timing of Zendaya's choice adds another layer of sensitivity to the controversy. Annelise Baer, an archaeologist and producer based in Los Angeles, has highlighted the particularly fraught context of wearing Iranian artefacts during a period when Iran faces ongoing military tensions with the United States. "Iran is being actively bombed," Baer pointed out, suggesting that the decision to display Iranian cultural property as a celebrity accessory carries additional weight in this geopolitical moment. The choice can be read not merely as an aesthetic decision but as one that reflects broader power dynamics in how Western culture treats artefacts from regions it views through a security or conflict lens.
Interestingly, this was not an isolated incident at the same promotional event. Anne Hathaway, Zendaya's co-star, wore jewellery featuring a stone historically presented by Mughal emperor Shah Jahangir to his son Shah Jahan—the ruler who commissioned the Taj Mahal in the seventeenth century. The parallel instances suggest a deliberate curatorial choice by stylists to incorporate historically significant objects into red carpet appearances, creating a narrative of connection to world history and cultural sophistication. Yet this strategy raises uncomfortable questions about who has the right to wear global heritage and what message is sent when such objects appear primarily on Western celebrities.
Barron London has attempted to navigate the controversy by acknowledging the complex atmosphere surrounding the pieces while defending their role in contemporary fashion. The gallery's statement recognized the tensions without fully addressing the core concern about whether such objects should be worn as accessories at all. Barron's social media post attracted mixed responses, with some commentators questioning the ethics of the choice while others saw potential value in the visibility the pieces received. The gallery appears caught between commercial interests and growing public awareness of cultural appropriation and artefact repatriation movements.
The archaeologist Annelise Baer has offered a more nuanced perspective that acknowledges both the problems and unexpected benefits of this controversy. While initially advocating for the potential educational value of bringing these issues to public attention, her position sparked significant backlash on social media, ultimately prompting her to disable comments on her posts. Baer's evolution on the issue reflects the genuine complexity: highlighting ancient artefacts can raise awareness about looting and colonialism, yet it simultaneously normalises their commodification and can be perceived as insensitive to the nations from which they originated.
This episode arrives at a moment when the fashion industry increasingly faces scrutiny for its environmental impact, labour practices, and cultural appropriation. Adding ancient artefacts to red carpet looks represents an escalation in celebrity styling that raises fresh ethical questions about who controls cultural narratives and who profits from global heritage. The fact that neither Zendaya, Law Roach, nor the jeweller Glenn Spiro immediately responded to requests for comment suggests an awareness among the principals that legitimate concerns have been raised about this trend.
The broader implications of this controversy extend well beyond a single red carpet moment. For Malaysian and Southeast Asian audiences, the debate carries particular resonance given the region's own complex history with artefact looting and museum collections in Western institutions. Numerous cultural treasures from across Asia remain housed in foreign museums under circumstances that echo the colonial extraction reflected in the Ziwiye hoard. This moment offers an opportunity to reflect on how fashion, museums, and the display of global heritage contribute to ongoing power imbalances in how cultural ownership is determined.
Ultimately, the Zendaya earrings controversy has inadvertently opened a necessary conversation about the ethics of treating ancient artefacts as fashion accessories, the troubling histories embedded in museum collections, and the responsibility that comes with platforms of celebrity visibility. While the fashion industry may continue experimenting with historical materials, the archaeological and cultural communities have made clear that such choices demand serious consideration of provenance, respect for source communities, and acknowledgment of colonial legacies. The question now facing stylists and fashion houses is whether the visual impact of wearing history justifies the ethical complications that accompany such choices.
