Regarding the Harvard magazine article, I don't buy the basic premise of the study.

Consider the wide number of things we now know exist that we didn't know about for most of human history. Are we suddenly supposed to doubt the existence of germs because Shakespeare didn't write about them?

How about the thousands of psychotic characters presented that may have been experiencing abuse trauma but because authors of the time had no idea this happened to people, they just presented the characters as generically crazy?

And let's not forget what culture does to the perception of naturally occuring phenomenon. When religion dominated perceptions of human behavior, a recovered memory could easily be confused with a religious vision, which again appears in literature throughout history.

Finally, how many other human characteristics or illnesses were never chosen as worthy topics by historic authors? Can I conclude that narcolepsy or the subconscious didn't exist prior to the 1900's because it was never seized upon as a worthy plot element in fiction?

As I see it the assumption of the study is flawed so, it's a bs premise in my humble opinion.

Cyran0