This paper attempts to address, as how history and time to be understood? How problematic studying the past is? It is a dilemma between static and variations in understanding time, Dilemma in prioritizing between emotions and intellect in the construction of historical knowledge. It is a friction between anachronisms versus historicism. Historians may create histories back to front; the results of such views are presented here, for readability, as a monumental setting, costs of characters and even a denouement: the present. Which passage will lead to the construction of history as accurate as possible? Is it by imposing historian’s notion on a particular event and historical developments, by himself sitting on the judge mental position? Or by allowing the period to speak itself by understanding the fact that each period as its own predominant practices and the events of that era will reflect the practice of the future generation?