Posted on 07/17/2012 8:15:24 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
By normal definition of the word "history", it began when people themselves began writing, circa 3,200 BC.
Everything before that is classified as "pre-historic".
"Pre-historic" doesn't mean we know nothing about those folks, just that we have no written records which they themselves left.
But, of course, the geniuses at AGW Central have discovered CO2 is the magic bullet that can turn off the glacial cycle! Not!
Great point. Do you have a link/source for your tagline?
So then the difference is between what had been recorded at the time and evidence being discovered and recorded now. I think it all counts as history, whether it be Nostradamus’ Quatraines, cave paintings, distant supernovae or the fossilized remains of some previously undiscovered ancient species.
Counts for what?
If you wish to count everything as "history" and effectively eliminate the concept of "prehistoric", what exactly do you gain?
To repeat: the usual definition of "history" means "recorded history", with "prehistoric" meaning "before recorded history".
I'd say that's still an important distinction, so what is your problem with it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.