[lebuffon]

"ancient history starts from the beginning of writing or recorded history"

Perhaps an unconscious bias of literate cultures. In the Canadian high arctic years ago, scientists discovered evidence of "paleo-eskimo" (bad name) peoples in the soil. These included more primitive hunting tools than were used by the Inuit people who were there when Europeans arrived.

They took to the tools to the village elders excited to show what they had found. The news story reported that the elders said (paraphrase) "Yes we know. These are the Tuliit people. We have songs about them" :-0

[InitialLastName]

I think some would argue that oral history counts as "recording", so this is history.

More generally, history (as a field) deals with those records, where archaeology as a field deals with the artifacts. They obviously interact and inform each other to varying extents, but are distinct in their practices and habits.

[seneca]

> Perhaps an unconscious bias of literate cultures

It seems like a quite conscious decision. That's how categorizing things works. You have to have a definition, however vague and exception ridden, otherwise your words don't refer to anything.