Zendaya wore earrings made from ancient Iranian artefacts dating to roughly 700 BC at a London photocall for Christopher Nolan's film adaptation of The Odyssey, drawing condemnation from archaeologists and art historians who called the use of looted antiquities as celebrity accessories a "hijacking" of Iran's cultural heritage (The Guardian).

The actress, who plays the goddess Athena in Nolan's film, appeared at the promotional event wearing gold medallions described as approximately 3,000 years old. The earrings belong to Barron London, a Mayfair-based gallery and dealer, which states the artefacts were purchased from London jeweller Glenn Spiro in 2025 and attributed to the Ziwiye hoard — a trove of gold, silver, bronze, and terracotta discovered in north-western Iran in 1947 after being looted by shepherds.

Professor Sussan Babaie, an Iranian-born art historian at the Courtauld Institute, expressed outrage at the decision. She said there is not enough cultural knowledge and sensibility among those who dress and accessorise celebrities, pointing to a systemic gap in how stylists and image teams engage with the provenance — the documented history of an object's ownership and origin — and significance of the objects they select. Dr Annelise Baer, an archaeologist and producer, identified the central ethical issue more specifically: the earrings were made out of looted antiquities. Archaeologists collectively criticised the deployment of culturally significant artefacts as fashion accessories, framing it as an appropriation of Iran's contributions to humanity.

The controversy began gaining traction in mid-July. People magazine reported on the earrings on July 18, followed by a CNN Instagram reel the same day referencing social media reaction during the press tour (People; CNN/Instagram). Complex published coverage by Trey Alston on July 19 (Complex). ARTnews reported that critics labelled Zendaya "Orientalist" for wearing the artefacts at an Odyssey promotional event (ARTnews). The Guardian's July 21 science-desk reporting, the most detailed account published, does not name a specific social media post, Iranian official, or cultural organisation as the origin point of the backlash; the named critics are Babaie and the archaeologists who spoke to the paper.

The Ziwiye hoard's provenance is central to the ethical dispute. Discovered near Saqqez in Iranian Kurdistan in the late 1940s, the find was looted before any formal archaeological excavation could take place, meaning the objects entered the market without the contextual data that controlled excavation provides. For archaeologists, that context is the primary evidentiary value of any find — think of it as a crime scene: once the surrounding evidence is disturbed, the object itself loses much of what it can tell us. Looting destroys that context permanently, rendering an object diminished as a scholarly resource. The transformation of fragments from such a hoard into wearable jewellery compounds the concern, as it prioritises aesthetic and commercial use over archaeological and cultural integrity.

The broader context here is a recurring tension between the art and antiques market, celebrity styling, and the heritage claims of source nations. The question of who gets to display, wear, or profit from antiquities removed from their countries of origin has become a live issue in the cultural-property field. Cases involving major museums and private collectors in recent years have seen increased scrutiny of acquisition practices, with source nations pursuing restitution — the return of cultural objects to their countries of origin — for objects removed during periods of colonial occupation or through illicit trafficking. A celebrity wearing artefacts from a looted hoard on a global press tour raises the visibility of these debates considerably, though the fundamental ethical questions predate this particular incident.

Barron London's account of the earrings' provenance, tracing them from the Ziwiye hoard through Glenn Spiro to their current ownership, raises its own set of questions for the cultural-property field. The absence of formal archaeological excavation at Ziwiye means the chain of custody begins with a looting event, and the subsequent commercial transactions do not retroactively create legitimate archaeological provenance. Whether the artefacts were exported from Iran legally or illegally at any point in their journey from the 1940s to a Mayfair gallery is a question the available reporting does not resolve.

Neither Zendaya, Nolan, nor the film's production company is identified in the available reporting as having responded to the criticism. The scope of the backlash, as documented across multiple outlets from July 18 through July 21, is concentrated among heritage professionals and social media commentary rather than official state actors.

What remains unresolved is whether this incident prompts any change in how celebrity styling teams assess the provenance of the objects they borrow or commission for high-visibility appearances. The criticism from Babaie and the archaeological community is directed not solely at one actress but at a decision-making pipeline in which cultural significance is routinely subordinated to visual impact.