[anglepose]

the birth off history would be the when man learnt to write to comunicate but when was this i think it is around 20,000bc

[Chacmool]

That would only be recorded history. History itself is made all the time, whether or not anyone is there to record or even observe it.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

That would only be recorded history. History itself is made all the time, whether or not anyone is there to record or even observe it.

Actually history began when humans began to write and record. That occurred circa 3,500 BCE in Mesopotamia and a little later in Egypt. Recorded history began less than 6,000 years ago.

Pre-history is the time before writing developed where anthropologists and archeologists study pre-historic human remains and their cultures.

[Edella]

In its broadest sense history simply refers to all that has come before.In the context of this forum I think history means the branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events.

[Qfwfq]

The accepted definition of the term is what Freddy says, written records.

[DarkColoredLight]

Why does it have to start with writen records. If you know someone lived in a cave at one point. It's that proof enough?

Saying this is were we lived, not how. If you can link the two, this is were we lived, and this is were we wrote about how we lived. More power to you.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by DarkColoredLight

Why does it have to start with writen records. If you know someone lived in a cave at one point. It's that proof enough?

Because by definition historians study written records and archaeologists study the remains that are found in the cave. It is a convenient division. As long as we recognise it is an artificial division, and do not allow it to inhibit cross disciplinary investigations, then it is a fruitful division.

[DarkColoredLight]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Because by definition historians study written records and archaeologists study the remains that are found in the cave. It is a convenient division. As long as we recognise it is an artificial division, and do not allow it to inhibit cross disciplinary investigations, then it is a fruitful division.

Makes sense.

History - How, or atleast writin
Archeology - Where

[Freddy]

Some past groups had very scant written records also. That is why archeologists dig up those sites to gain information because some people could not write or did not record much information for us to gain knowledge.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Some past groups had very scant written records also. That is why archeologists dig up those sites to gain information because some people could not write or did not record much information for us to gain knowledge.

Historians get information from all sorts of sources.
(Have you seen the series "Battlefield Detectives"?)
from art, Architecture, archeology, genes, artifacts, geology, ice-cores,tools etc
It seems pedantic to make a distinction between archeology and history based on writing
For us, History began about 5 billion years ago when something went "BANG"
For others . . ?