1. Lack of Specific Details: Equiano's descriptions of his experiences lack precise details and specific place names, making it challenging to verify his accounts. Scholars find it odd that he does not provide the names of the slave ships or the plantations where he allegedly worked. This raises doubts about the accuracy and reliability of his recollections.
2. Inaccurate Chronology: Equiano's timeline doesn't always seem consistent. There are instances where he mentions events occurring in different years or sequences that don't match historical records. These discrepancies raise questions about the accuracy of his chronology, which makes it difficult to corroborate his claims.
3. Embellishments and Exaggerations: Some scholars believe Equiano's narrative contains embellishments, exaggerations, and sensationalized accounts to make it more appealing and emotionally impactful for readers. They argue that certain descriptions seem too coincidental or dramatic, blurring the line between factual reporting and literary license.
4. Influence of the Abolitionist Movement: Equiano's autobiography was published in 1789 during the height of the abolitionist movement in Britain. Scholars suggest that he might have tailored certain aspects of his narrative to appeal to the abolitionist cause, highlighting the horrors of slavery and the urgent need for its abolition. This could have influenced his recollections and led to some exaggerations or fabrications.
It's important to note that not all scholars doubt the entire autobiography, and there is still value in Equiano's work. His narratives provide crucial insights into the experiences and perspectives of enslaved individuals during that period. However, the identification of certain inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies has led scholars to treat his account with a degree of caution, recognizing the possibility that some aspects may not be entirely reliable or fully corroborated.