The boundary between artistic expression and cultural respect has become impossible to ignore following Zendaya's striking appearance at a recent London film promotion, where she paired a Jacquemus ivory halter gown with gold disc earrings believed to originate from the first millennium BC. The choice, paired with her stylist Law Roach's consistent track record of generating conversation through haute couture, raises uncomfortable questions about how the fashion world relates to historical artifacts and the communities they represent.
The earrings in question originate from what experts call the Ziwiye hoard, a collection of ancient treasures allegedly unearthed during excavations in the 1940s near Ziwiyeh Castle in northwestern Iran. According to Barron London, a gallery specialising in rare jewels, the gold medallion plaques were mounted with diamonds by London-based jeweller Glenn Spiro. Their provenance extends back over two millennia, yet their journey from archaeological site to luxury accessory encapsulates a troubling narrative about how the West has historically treated artefacts from non-Western civilisations.
The archaeological community has responded with considerable concern about the fashion choice. Peter Edwell, a professor of history and archaeology at Macquarie University in Sydney, articulated the core problem: these pieces represent "material that's very problematic in terms of where it's come from." The issue transcends this singular instance. Thousands of artifacts from the Middle East and beyond occupy murky territory regarding their acquisition, with plunder and looting constituting the most likely explanation for how these objects left their original contexts. The Ziwiye collection now appears in prestigious institutions worldwide, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, yet questions about ethical ownership persist.
Archaeologists argue that wearing ancient artifacts as fashion accessories risks what Dr Z, an archaeologist and content creator, terms "fetishising the past." This concern extends beyond aesthetics. Such high-profile displays of ancient objects potentially stimulate demand within the antiquities black market, encouraging further looting and exploitation of archaeological sites. When celebrities normalise wearing objects with disputed provenance, they inadvertently create cultural permission for such acquisitions, regardless of how problematic their origins may be.
The timing and context of Zendaya's fashion choice warrant consideration. The decision to accessorise with Iranian artifacts came amid ongoing military tensions affecting Iran and amid heightened racial scrutiny of the film adaptation itself. Annelise Baer, an archaeologist and producer based in Los Angeles, noted that the choice carried particular sensitivity given that "Iran is being actively bombed." For many observers, the combination of wearing Iranian cultural heritage during a geopolitically fraught moment suggested either insensitivity or, at minimum, a lack of awareness regarding broader implications.
This incident represents merely the latest chapter in a longer story of celebrities adorning themselves with historical objects. At the same event, Zendaya's co-star Anne Hathaway wore jewellery featuring a stone that reportedly originated from the Mughal empire, allegedly gifted by Emperor Shah Jahangir to his son Shah Jahan in the seventeenth century. The pattern reveals how red carpet dressing has evolved into a competition where stylists pursue increasingly rare and historically significant pieces to generate media attention and establish their clients as tastemakers.
The fashion industry's appetite for such accessories reflects broader trends in celebrity styling. Law Roach has built a reputation for achieving what seemed impossible through meticulous curation and access to exclusive pieces. The silver robot suit from Thierry Mugler's 1995 collection worn by Zendaya at another promotional event demonstrated this commitment to historical fashion references. However, wearing replicated or archived fashion differs fundamentally from accessorising with actual ancient artifacts—one celebrates design history, the other appropriates cultural heritage.
When celebrities wear pieces steeped in historical significance, observers noted, they position themselves "directly in that world, and they add to that story." This observation cuts both ways. While such choices can amplify public interest in history and archaeology, they simultaneously risk reducing complex cultural narratives to aesthetic components. Ancient Iranian gold discs represent not merely beautiful objects but material evidence of lost civilisations, religious practices, and historical moments now inaccessible to direct study.
The conversation sparked by this incident extends to fundamental questions about ownership and stewardship. Galleries like Barron London operate within legal frameworks that permit the acquisition and display of ancient objects, yet legality does not address the deeper ethical dimensions. Items acquired through colonial-era plunder occupy a grey zone where museums and private collectors debate whether possession carries moral weight. When such objects appear on red carpets, they force public audiences to confront uncomfortable realities about how Western institutions have historically treated non-Western heritage.
Interestingly, not all responses to the fashion choice condemned it outright. Some commentators recognised potential value in the episode's ability to educate broader audiences. Baer herself initially viewed the mainstreaming of ancient artifacts as beneficial, seeing the controversy as an opportunity to bring issues of antiquities ownership, provenance, and colonialism into public discourse. This perspective, however, attracted significant social media backlash, prompting her to disable comments—a telling indication of how emotionally charged these discussions have become.
The Zendaya incident illuminates tensions within contemporary culture regarding historical objects and their role in modern life. For Malaysian and Southeast Asian audiences particularly, these questions resonate deeply, given the region's own experiences with colonial-era artifact removal and ongoing negotiations regarding cultural property. The debate extends beyond fashion into fundamental questions about whose history matters, who controls historical narratives, and how contemporary figures should relate to the material legacies of ancient civilisations.
Moving forward, the fashion industry faces a choice: continue pursuing rare historical artifacts for celebrity styling, or establish ethical boundaries that respect archaeological integrity and cultural sovereignty. The conversation sparked by Zendaya's earrings, while uncomfortable, serves the valuable function of making visible what previously remained backstage—the complex relationship between fashion, history, and power that shapes whose stories get told and how.
