I don't think so - there is a widespread confusion about life expectancy. If, for example, child mortality was high compared to modern times, the life expectancy at birth was low.
However, for those who survived childhood, the life expectancy would not be very much different from modern.
Example: triplets were born, but one died at birth, another when he was 10, and another lived to 80. So, life expectancy at birth is only 30 years, but measured at five years of age it is 45 years, and measured at 20 years of age it is full 80 years.
It shows the age 30 life expectancy, in 1900 it was 35 years, so 65 year old. Compare to today which is 47 years (77 years old).
There are life tables for historical periods, but the modern data is likely more reliable and still shows quite some difference.
Your link makes a good point about life expectancy at birth not being the right measure, but there is a very real expansion in life expectancy that has taken place. I guess infectious disease control probably pulled a lot of that expansion into the last 100 years.
However, for those who survived childhood, the life expectancy would not be very much different from modern.
Example: triplets were born, but one died at birth, another when he was 10, and another lived to 80. So, life expectancy at birth is only 30 years, but measured at five years of age it is 45 years, and measured at 20 years of age it is full 80 years.
This short article gives some explanation. http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-...