The historian Jorge Grespam 6 wrote that he was in the end of century XVIII is that started to be argued and to be developed the criteria and procedures of critical and analysis of the sources is that history started to be science. It was the method, therefore, that it gave to history the scientific character and to the historian, the condition of scientist. But to weigh to have received the statute from science, what if she gave with the Positivista school in ends of century XIX, as affirms the historians Maria of the Pillar of Arajo Vieira, History received hard you criticize in century XX with affirms Jorge Grespam. final 3.Consideraes the changes why they had passed the interpretativas boardings of the past from century XIX, over all with a valuation of archaeology for explanations of the roots of the humanity, had tried a more concrete and lasting formatting of the historical time and the notion contemporary of result of accumulated experiences, the least in more progressive sectors of the half academic. This perception in the treatment of the questions concerning everything what the man knows in such a way in the nature for the application in the daily life in the cultural chain or the excessively current ones as, for example: social, politics, economic, etc, in affirmations to be scientific knowledge or not, not only opens a great fan of quarrels in the half academic, but in the ideological debates of the social environments. To each day that passes the time, the historical knowledge if firm as a scientific knowledge and dialoguing with the other areas of the knowledge, truth in a perspective is constructed to a knowledge to interdisciplinar. In the academy, history is seen much more as a question of the gift of what of the past. To understand what we are today, as individuals or society looking at for our past, yesterday, seems to be the search of the understanding of where we came and for where we go.