I’m not sure I follow. If you’re saying we can’t have insight into the experience of an average peasant from primary sources and modern analysis, then we can’t

I’m not sure I follow. If you’re saying we can’t have insight into the experience of an average peasant from primary sources and modern analysis, then we can’t draw the conclusions suggested in the article either, right? But if you accept that those sources may speak to the experience, the point is that the article’s supposition runs counter to them. The article’s story just articulates an ahistorical, folksy ideology where historical people (and others) are more one-dimensional and uniform than enlightened “modern” people.