Many a scholar has commented that even if objectivity is achieved by a historian, such objectivity always remains confined within the narration of the facts that are presented sequentially.
According to (Rüsen, 2), the best definition of history must include the sense and meaning within the expression of time in the past, present and future. The connectivity of these aspects of time utilizes the main mental form of presentation that narration offers. Narration gives past, present and future some meaning to human life by relating experience to expectation. It is therefore correct to state narratives as the form in which history is stored in human minds and assists them to orientate themselves in temporal change. Objectivity in historical narratives has been analyzed to act as a yardstick of validity, integrity and truth in narratives. The main purpose of narrative objectivity can be said to be the linking impact of historical occurrences and the cumulative complement that each part of history gives to the other.
In ancient historical narratives, there was lack of linkage of historical ideas from different writers and time. Objectivity was lacking due to the fact that there was no platform to refer one’s work from pre-existing similar ideas. Many inconsistencies were identified in ancient narratives when comparisons of such uniformed texts were done. Later, ancient historical narratives adopted the truth claim of connecting history to valid explanations of events. The validity of the majority of ancient texts is highly questionable, partly due to the fact that the literacy levels were limited. Majority of ancient historical texts were primary sources since the authors were the first to generate and write on the topics.
Modern historical narration has however adopted a more literature perspective in offering validity to events and occurrences. Almost every topic in history has been explored and the relevant information backed up in form of databases.