4 ms·

I think it’s fair based on this “color-blind” test: If you didn’t know anything about these two, what would you call them? The historical answer is: the lover

I think it’s fair based on this “color-blind” test: If you didn’t know anything about these two, what would you call them? The historical answer is: the lovers, because they actually thought they were of different genders when found, and it seemed like a good fit to the people who found them. The problem is that if I now add “turns out they’re both male”, backtracking to say “we can’t be sure they were lovers” looks pretty suspect. Bottom line, before knowing their genders, we called them “the lovers.” Even with no gender identification whatsoever, that’s what people went with. So let’s keep it. P.S. I presume they’re not related because I think the DNA studies would’ve uncovered that.

selcuka 3y ago
Reading between the lines much? If they were of opposite genders it is still reasonable to think that they could have been parent and child (given their ages), siblings, or even friends. Now if you ask me I would say that they were lovers (regardless of their gender), too, but it's not a definitive interpretation.
- adriand 3y ago
  I think it’s harmless to call them the “Hasanlu Lovers” because sure, the scene lends itself to that name. But to assume that that is the case seems odd to me, because these were two people who were dying together. If you discover two people who are entwined in a loving embrace under normal circumstances, assuming an intimate relationship seems defensible. But when people are dying, I think different assumptions have to be considered. I can imagine that even two total strangers might seek to comfort one another if they were trapped in a burning building together, as some of the archaeologists surmise. “I don’t want to die! Can you hold me?” That said, it’s so stupid that we have these arguments when really what we see here is something so sad and touching and human. Whether they were lovers or not the important takeaway is that these two seemingly found comfort in each other in their dying moments.
  - strken 3y ago
    It's a little strange to think that, if my city gets invaded and I hide in a dumpster with a complete stranger ten years my junior, archaeologists a thousand years later might argue about whether we were lovers. Male or female it's one hell of a logical jump.

selcuka 3y ago

Reading between the lines much? If they were of opposite genders it is still reasonable to think that they could have been parent and child (given their ages), siblings, or even friends. Now if you ask me I would say that they were lovers (regardless of their gender), too, but it's not a definitive interpretation.

adriand 3y ago
I think it’s harmless to call them the “Hasanlu Lovers” because sure, the scene lends itself to that name. But to assume that that is the case seems odd to me, because these were two people who were dying together. If you discover two people who are entwined in a loving embrace under normal circumstances, assuming an intimate relationship seems defensible. But when people are dying, I think different assumptions have to be considered. I can imagine that even two total strangers might seek to comfort one another if they were trapped in a burning building together, as some of the archaeologists surmise. “I don’t want to die! Can you hold me?” That said, it’s so stupid that we have these arguments when really what we see here is something so sad and touching and human. Whether they were lovers or not the important takeaway is that these two seemingly found comfort in each other in their dying moments.
- strken 3y ago
  It's a little strange to think that, if my city gets invaded and I hide in a dumpster with a complete stranger ten years my junior, archaeologists a thousand years later might argue about whether we were lovers. Male or female it's one hell of a logical jump.