I'm sorry but this has to be the most un-scientific account I've read on the topic (granted, I read few), and it's incredibly misleading.

- Humans did not change biologically enough in 10,000 years, let alone 2,000, to produce a meaningfully different psychology. Take a a child born 2,000 years ago, raise them today, and you'll get just a regular human being. Same thing backwards.

- The entirety of the author's 'hypothesis' (sic) rests upon ignoring that nurture, context, is highly determinant in forming psychological references, relative perceptions, hence reactions, profiles. This is wrong, nature isn't 100%, you simply can't take two identical beings, put them in vastly different contexts and hope they present the same behaviors and perceptions. It makes no sense. Hello Darwin, wish you were here.

- “the absence of evidence”... Again, wrong. Historical psychology is a thing. Author may be well-meaning, but they should adopt a transdisciplinary approach if they are to talk about multiple disciplines at once. Find a good psychologist, work together as one on the topic long enough to form a legitimate hypotheses, then maybe make some conclusions.

- It seems the author also neglected to take into account philosophy, which used to be 99% practical back then. Recipes for good living. Guess why it was widely taught and shared, pretty much the basis of any education, throughout life. Guess why Seneca wrote his letters. What's the point of ignoring just about the closest thing to psychology sessions? Why is Stoicism not in that essay?

I feel like I've just read a mathematician trying, painfully, to speak of epidemiology. (forgive the "modern" reference, I think it's fitting as we speak)

Whatever your core expertise, armchair-other disciplines is a slippery slope. I guess the author somehow mistook his own intelligence for knowledge in psychology.

Say whatever you want about our past, you won't find a psychologist or biologist to tell you we've changed in any way, shape or form "inside". The context, however, ah, the context. Well for that, this thread on HN is much more eloquent, I must say. It's almost as if people collectively had insight! (because this is written: "/s", of course they do, and I wish the author didn't simply write solo or fail to question or quote others.

Here's food for thought: the very fact of "talking about your feelings" is very modern, that's a totally different context. We just didn't dwell on that topic as much in history (hence why, perhaps, some literature became so notorious, because it spoke of something that people weren't used to). It was "fluff". Hence why, when we made "emotions" a matter of science, it became a more acceptable topic, not just for a few who dared. It became "mainstream". (I'm NOT a specialist, so don't quote me on this but Freud, Jung, positivism, is probably where/when to look for a major shift; before that it was "magic", fluff, but it doesn't mean it wasn't "real", like belief in supernatural forces is "magic" but real to the psyche).

Imagine that, in the future, we turn some (currently) elusive aspect of our psyche (like belief indeed), into a form of science, of applied psycho-bio-model-mechanics (like we do cognitive sciences today, a scientific progress over prior centuries). Now imagine some author versed in history but oblivious to psychology and biology, centuries from now, claiming in some random short post that people in the 21st century did not experience any tension in that regard because they didn't have words for it. Well, we may not have the words indeed, not yet; but we certainly experience the tensions with beliefs (supernatural or otherwise), heck we made wars because of it. Just like kings of old have waged war because their feelings commanded them to.

That, my friend, is ethnocentricity of a temporal form (not strictly spatial as is usually the implication with that notion). At best, it's blinding Omphaloskepsis.

Edit: lovely downvotes! So, you think PTSD is a modern thing. You think human psychology has changed dramatically in a few centuries. Alright, point taken! FWIW, I've spoken with psychologists explicitly about this question, and my view is informed by their conclusions. You may wish to rethink your modern bias on biology.