In my book that would qualify. I would also accept anyone whose name and existence we know of through historical accounts or records, even if not famous.
It does not apply to anonymous human remains that have later had a nickname applied to them, like Lucy or Otzi.
Might it be someone on the Sumerian King List? Wikipedia says, “The list blends prehistorical, presumably mythical predynastic rulers with implausibly lengthy reigns with later, more plausibly historical dynasties. Although the primal kings are historically unattested, this does not preclude their possible correspondence with historical rulers who were later mythicized. Some Assyriologists view the predynastic kings as a later fictional addition.” Is there a consensus on the earliest king on the list that is considered to be generally accepted as historical? It seems that En-me-barage-si is the first king that is “confirmed independently from epigraphical evidence”.
Some of these Sumerian rulers would beat Ötzi, BTW, although not more than their names and the approximate time they lived are known.
But we do know which blood type Ötzi had, his fashion preferences and what he ate for dinner.
How does that make him historical? Please provide a definition of what you mean by “historical.”
historical = in the past
Natural history. I’m surprised you didn’t consider that.
[QUOTE=TriPolar]
Natural history. I’m surprised you didn’t consider that
[/QUOTE]
So in your book, any fossil human remains qualify, even (let’s say) a tooth.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what the OP meant.
What’s the difference between historic and prehistoric, then?
Well, the OP is researching options for a dress party and I would argue that dressing up as Ötzi is pretty cool (I’m considering this myself now, BTW). 
If the tooth tells us something about how this human lived, what he ate, whether he suffered illnesses etc. than yes, it is definitely historical.
Yes. I mentioned bones initially. The problem would be making a costume other than your typical Halloween skeleton suit. Ötzi is more ancient and more definitely exists than some Pharoah known only from a hand drawn picture.
No it isn’t, by any accepted definition.
By your definition Tyrannosaurus rex is historical.
You’re using your own definition of “historical,” then.
I can understand your point. Prehistoric by definition means: before written history started. But I think that this is too narrow. What about, for instance, Native Americans? No written accounts of their past exist but they certainly had a rich history before the Europeans showed up.
No, they had a past, but they didn’t have a history in the formal sense before Europeans showed up. That’s the meaning of “historical” vs prehistoric.
Not to be snarky, but this is a serious question. Is English your first language?
Could a case be made that Otzi, himself, be considered to be historical data in that he is direct evidence of what was worn at a certain time in history?
“1. a : of, relating to, or having the character of history <historical data>”
We’ve been through this before. How is Ötzi not part of natural history?
Nope. That’s archaeology, not history.
Irrelevant, of course. The OP refences “history,” not “natural history,” and the two are quite distinct. A museum of history will have quite different exhibits than a museum of natural history.
You are right, thanks for pointing this out, but it doesn’t make any difference in this case.
I grant you that traditionally a clear distinction has been made between historical (=written history) and prehistorical (=no written history), but that’s a 19th century approach. It is my understanding that modern historians don’t do that any more. The old terms are still in use, though.
That is simply your interpretation. The OP is free to reject the Iceman and either of our interpretations. But more to the point, Ötzi can be verified to have existed. Narner and Ka cannot. That’s why I mentioned him in the first place.
Of course it does. The OP references “history” and “historical people,” and gives a Pharoah as an example. It’s pretty clear that written history is what is meant.