New Chronology

In which Rat applies the method

Good time of day, humans!

Many of you are probably familiar with «New Chronology» or similar brands of historical revisionism that seek out discrepancies and repetitions in the historical record. While large parts of history are indeed spotty or outright fake, conclusions like «first millennium didn’t happen at all» are most likely far-fetched.

Rat however finds the method interesting.

Transcript:

Cousin: — So you’re saying Friday wasn’t in fact Friday?
Rat: — Yes, my analysis of Robinson Crusoe’s diary reveals inconsistencies. Friday should have rather been called Sunday.
Rat: — ...although frankly, I’m now starting to doubt if the events in the diary ever happened at all.

---

As for Robinson’s diary, it admits chronology issues in Chapter VII, prior the the encounter with Friday:

I had all this time observed no Sabbath day; for as at first I had no sense of religion upon my mind, I had, after some time, omitted to distinguish the weeks, by making a longer notch than ordinary for the Sabbath day, and so did not really know what any of the days were; but now, having cast up the days as above, I found I had been there a year; so I divided it into weeks, and set apart every seventh day for a Sabbath; though I found at the end of my account I had lost a day or two in my reckoning.