The thing about historians saying that people were friends and not lovers is to avoid coming to conclusions without necessary evidence. Now, I'm sure there is a degree of homophobia, but historians aren't from those cultures, so they can't say for certain if a behavior was actually evident of homosexuality or if it is simply the lens of modern culture.

I have a funny story about this. In 1685, James II, a Catholic, came to the throne in England. The people, who were very protestant, let this happen with minimal rebellion because everyone thought he was gay. But in the 1600's they didn't really have a word for homosexuality, so the only thing that is clear from historical records is they were very sure he wasn't going to have a kid during his reign (he already had a daughter). So my history professor professor explained it as they all thought he was nudge nudge you know. But when he did end up having a son, all hell broke loose and the people of England basically invited William of Orange to invade.

As much as I like to share snickers about "Sappho and her friend" interpretative moments, I also don't like the automatic assumption that deep friendships must always involve fucking as a presumed matter of course.