Biases Of Historiography

957 Words4 Pages
The biases of historiography Over the past hundreds of years, there have been many schools of history. From these schools, great works of written documentation have appeared. Although, something to keep in mind is that a school of history is not a physical place or an educational establishment, but rather it is a term given to a group of academics who think and work relatively the same. These many different schools recorded findings and historical events and are put in these different groups partially for the reason to classify their knowledge and biases of certain events. Unless a historian witnessed firsthand a particular event, he writes based on stories and rumors from those who claimed to know. Even if that particular historian did witness an event, he is still liable to tell the story from his perspective causing the true story to be partially off. As mentioned before, historians write about history. What many people don’t understand is that they don’t write history, but rather historiography. The difference is that history is any past time or event that has ever occurred and historiography is the physical written record of these particular events. What is difficult is the fact that historians are only able to write about the artifacts and memories of themselves or others. Because of this, all that a historian can do is attempt to retrieve and develop information about the past and in the process, hopefully discover new facts and information. From this, he or she hope to develop a semi-accurate conclusion of past events based on artifacts, testimonies, and other written documentation. It is a well known fact amongst them and others that neither they, nor any other person can provide a completely accurate and unbiased document stating past history. To try to achieve this, historians use creative writing, artifacts such as paintings and sculptures, letters,
Open Document