History is based upon written records, which is in contrast to archaeology which considers physical evidence. Another way to think of it is that archaeology can

History is based upon written records, which is in contrast to archaeology which considers physical evidence. Another way to think of it is that archaeology can tell us what happened, why history helps us to understand why it happened (with a whole slew of caveats based upon the limitations of each field). So the distinction is important and the term pre-history is both context dependent and relevant. It is quite possible that both parties exchanging beads were in the prehistoric period for that part of the world. Then again, maybe not. One party may have had writing. Even if they didn't, the oral histories should be close enough to the introduction of writing to be considered as reliable as writing.