Whats the difference between prehistory and history?

Question

I wrote down prehistory in my notes as: when there is a comprehensible language then its prehistory, and if we can't figure out their written language, then its not considered prehistory. But apparently I thought I would remember when its considered history. But I don't. Anyone know?

Answer 1

I've read an explanation that the demarcation is written language. If they've left behind writing, then it's history, because we can read their own words. If it's a pre-literate society, then it's pre-history.

Answer 2

pre history is the era of which we dont have any records  while history is the time of which we do have records, information in  the way of inscriptions, coins, manuscripts etc.

Answer 3

One was before the other.....Think about it a bit....(hint) writing.

Answer 4

Like most abstract terms, prehistory means different things to different people. For some it means the time before civilization. While I have no quarrel with that definition, it does not get at an essential difference between pre-history and ancient history.

For a civilization to have a history, it must have left written records, at least according to a very literal definition of the word 'history', which comes from the Greek for inquiry and came to mean a written account of events.

Answer 5

Prehistory and history have been traditionally used in anthropology / archaeology and continue to be accepted, but they are also loaded terms and can be considered discriminatory by different communities.

As stated above, prehistory is considered a time before a written record while history begins with a written record.  Symbolism, such as rock paintings and engravings are generally not considered to be a written record.

Prehistory implies that those groups who did not have a written record (but perhaps a rich oral tradition) existed before real history began.  It seperates these groups from those who did have an "historic" record.  

In North America, a number of archaeologists have replaced the word prehistory with precontact, meaning before the time that outsiders contacted the original inhabitants of the Americas.  It seems to be gaining acceptance, and is generally favoured among Aboriginal communities.  

My background is in archaeology I've worked with a number of indigenous communities, who have expressed these concerns.

Answer 6

I work as a contract archaeologist in the US, and the way we use it is writing vs. no writing.  I think that's how it is in general.  If the people left a written record, they're historic.  If not, pre-historic.  What this means in the US is that pre- European contact periods are considered prehistoric, and it's historic once the Europeans arrived (not a set date, because it's later for California than for Massachussetts).

I think it works that way elsewhere, though it does seem strange, doesn't it?  Like, Egypt's historic thousands of years back.  The idea is that, as soon as you have writing, you have a written record, as people are wordy, and you don't have to rely on bits of charcoal and clay to figure out what happened.