History is an account 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. Therefore, historiography is the reporting of history, especially after critical examination of different sources and selecting selective details and parts from renowned authentic sources/historians and writing them as a story or short story so that people can read and analyze different perspectives . critically. In other words, it is the story of the story. Historiographical essays are basically written on a particular issue. We are able to see things from different perspectives that are sometimes conflicting, and ultimately shape the way we understand the situation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the present day, historiographers aim to recreate an already written record of human activities and understand it in a better way. The methods of historians are quite recent and gained popularity and recognition in the late 18th and 19th centuries. It was during this period that the subject of history actually became a full-fledged academic profession and people began to write about all kinds of topics, such as science. It is therefore assumed that keeping track of historical events is an inevitable human characteristic and activity. This is because before then history has never been a significant topic for human education or for any other purpose, apart from texts and documents based on topics such as philosophy, religion or other arts such as poetry. Historiographers ask many questions. They question the identity and credibility of the writer and also consider what particular agenda they have or might have. They also try to analyze the writer's or historian's likelihood of accuracy by considering where they came from or where they were when they made their observations or reports. They also need to check whether any of the historian's personal traits might influence their perspective or agenda, such as gender, age, sexual orientation, nationalism or political ideologies, or any other beliefs that they might unconsciously contribute. Additionally, it is important to note what their primary and secondary sources of information were and whether they could alter their perspective in any way. Finally, it is essential to ensure that the literature is free from any bias, such as whether the historian has left out other significant details of the situation and whether he or she is creating a feeling of bias in the reader. It is perhaps clear that a basic feeling of a historiographer is skepticism. It is because of a well-known and accepted opinion that historians actually have some level of bias or a particular agenda behind their work and there is definitely a possibility that their method of interpretation or the sources selected for the information may have deeper intentions or demonstrate some pre-existing notions in society. Therefore, history as a subject is never, in its essence, “objective,” but is instead an amalgamation of the historian's beliefs. The only objective part may be the dates, events, etc. and is therefore left completely to the historian's decision as to how he perceives or interprets those facts in his mind and writings. So, when we read a certain piece of literature by a historian, we are actually reading one person's interpretation of events and facts. It is the historiographer's job to collect these interpretations from historians and analyze the situation based on them. Please note: this is just one.