Let me start with a question: When does a piece of ancient jewelry become a symbol of cultural erasure? Zendaya’s recent choice of earrings at the Odyssey press tour has ignited a firestorm of debate, but the real story isn’t just about what she wore—it’s about the centuries-old wound that Western culture keeps reopening. This isn’t just a fashion faux pas; it’s a collision between Hollywood’s glittering facade and the messy reality of cultural ownership. And honestly? It feels like the world is finally paying attention to a conversation that’s been simmering for decades.
The earrings in question, crafted from a 700BC hoard discovered in Iran, are not mere trinkets. They’re fragments of a civilization’s soul, looted by shepherds in the 1940s, sold in antique markets, and now paraded as a red-carpet accessory. What makes this particularly fascinating is the stark contrast between the earrings’ historical weight and their current use as a fashion statement. Personally, I think the outrage here isn’t just about the jewelry—it’s about the audacity of treating human heritage as disposable. These aren’t ‘accessories’ in the way a designer handbag is; they’re relics of a time when gold wasn’t just a metal but a language of power and spirituality. To wear them as if they’re interchangeable with any other bling? That’s not just insensitive. It’s a slap in the face to the people whose ancestors made them.
Let’s talk about the broader implications. The Ziwiye hoard’s journey from a sacred burial site to a Hollywood prop is a microcosm of a much larger problem: the West’s habit of appropriating non-Western artifacts under the guise of ‘preservation.’ The British Museum’s Benin Bronzes, the Parthenon Marbles—these are all part of the same narrative. What many people don’t realize is that these objects were stolen, not gifted. And yet, Western institutions still claim they’re ‘safekeeping’ them. This raises a deeper question: Who gets to define what ‘heritage’ means? If a piece of ancient Iran is displayed in a London gallery, does that make it British? Or does it belong to the people of Iran, whose history it represents?
The timing of this controversy is also maddening. As Iran faces relentless geopolitical aggression, here’s Hollywood glamourizing its antiquities. It’s like hosting a party at a war-torn neighborhood and pretending the bombs aren’t falling. Prof Sussan Babaie’s point—that these artifacts have ‘spiritual connotations’—is crucial. These aren’t just shiny objects. They’re tied to rituals, beliefs, and identities that modern Iran still carries. To strip them of that meaning and turn them into a fashion statement feels like cultural violence. And yet, the industry keeps doing it. Kim Kardashian’s Marilyn Monroe dress at the Met Gala was another chapter in this saga, but the pattern is clear: celebrities are increasingly being cast as cultural curators, even when they lack the context to do so responsibly.
Barron London’s claim that the earrings were ‘responsibly stewarded’ is a textbook example of institutional deflection. How do you responsibly steward something that was looted in the first place? The legal loopholes that allow private collectors to hoard ancient artifacts are a disgrace. This isn’t about ‘provenance’ or ‘legal requirements’—it’s about complicity. If the earrings were truly ‘protected,’ why are they being lent out for a movie premiere? What this really suggests is that the art world is still operating under the same colonial logic that justified looting in the first place. The difference now is that the public is finally asking questions.
And here’s the kicker: The Odyssey isn’t just facing backlash over the earrings. Its use of Dakhla in Western Sahara—occupied by Morocco—adds another layer of hypocrisy. It’s as if the film wants to celebrate ancient civilizations while ignoring the modern ones being erased. The Sahrawi filmmakers’ call for a boycott isn’t just about geography; it’s about accountability. If Hollywood wants to tell stories of ancient glory, it should also reckon with the present-day consequences of its choices. Otherwise, it’s just another version of the same imperialist narrative.
In my opinion, this controversy is a turning point. The public is no longer content with passive consumption of culture. People are demanding that art and history be treated with respect, not as commodities. The real challenge here isn’t just for Zendaya or her stylist—it’s for the entire industry to confront its role in perpetuating cultural exploitation. Because if we don’t start seeing these artifacts as more than just ‘beautiful things,’ we’ll keep repeating the same mistakes. And that, I think, is the most important lesson of all.
