History is a story written in narrative form. It is used to examine and analyze past events, while historiography is a combination of many historical works on a specific topic. Thus, historiography is the retelling of history, especially after critically examining different sources and selecting selective details and parts from renowned authentic sources/historians and writing it down as a history or narrative in order to so people can read and analyze different perspectives. critically. In other words, it's the story of the story. Historiographical essays essentially focus on a particular question. We are able to see things from different, sometimes contradictory, perspectives, and this ends up shaping our own way of understanding the situation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Nowadays, historiographers aim to recreate a previously written record of human activities and understand it better. The historians' methods are quite recent and gained popularity and recognition in the late 18th and 19th centuries. It was around this time that the subject of history became a real academic profession and people began writing about all kinds of subjects like science. It is therefore assumed that keeping records of historical events is an inevitable human characteristic and activity. This is because before this time, history has never been an important subject for humans, for education or any other purpose, outside of texts and documents based on subjects like philosophy , religion or other arts like poetry. Historiographers ask many questions. They question the identity and credibility of the writer and also reflect on the particular agenda the writer has or might have. They also attempt to analyze the possibility of accuracy of the writer or historian by considering where he came from or where he was when he made his observations or accounts. They should also check whether any personal trait of the historian might have an impact on their point of view or agenda, for example their gender, age, sexual orientation, nationalism or political ideologies or any other beliefs that might there contribute unconsciously. Additionally, it is important to note what their primary and secondary sources of information were and whether they could also change their views in any way. Finally, it is essential to ensure that the literature is free from bias, that is, whether the historian has omitted other significant details of the situation and whether this creates a sense of bias in the reader . It is perhaps obvious that an underlying feeling of a historiographer is skepticism. This is because of a well-known and accepted view that historians actually have some level of bias or a particular agenda behind their work and it is certainly possible that their method of interpretation or sources of information selected have deeper intentions or prove certain pre-existing notions in society. Therefore, history as a subject is never inherently "objective", but rather is an amalgamation of the historian's beliefs. The only objective part can be dates, events, etc. and is then left entirely to the historian how he perceives or interprets these facts in his mind and in his writings. So when we read a certain piece of literature written by a historian, we are actually reading an interpretation of events and.