I can give you a quick rundown of Classical historiography, but if anyone wants to add more, please be my guest :)

History in the Classical world would have been seen in a very different light, though some people would argue otherwise. In Cicero's De Oratore he says, "Everyone knows, of course, that the first law of historiography is to tell the truth and not daring to tell anything but the truth. And its second is that he must boldly tell the whole truth. There must be no suggestion of bias anywhere in his writings, nor of malice" (Cic. Orat., 2.62).

On the subject of the quote, historians were for a long time led to believe that people in Ancient Rome thought of history as being pretty much the same as we like to think of it today. We get comments such as:

"Cicero is not expressly advocating a type of historical exposition different from that employed by modern political historians" (Brunt, P. A. (1988) Cicero and Historiography, 188).

"History has altered but little over the course of time" (Fornara, C. W. (1983) The Nature of History in Greece and Rome, 200).

But there's a problem with this line of thought. Cicero was writing this in his De Oratore. He wasn't arguing about history. He was arguing about Oratory on a whole. Let's take a look at the whole piece in which he discusses history in his De Oratore, shall we? (apologies, this next bit will be lengthy).

"For history began as a mere compilation of annals, on which account, and in order to preserve the general traditions, from the earliest period of the City down to the pontificate of Publius Mucius, each High Priest used to commit to writing all the events of his year of office, and record them on a white surface, and post up the tablet at his house, that all men might have liberty to acquaint themselves therewith, and to this day those records are known as the Pontifical Chronicles.

A similar style of writing has been adopted by many who, without any rhetorical ornament (sine ullis ornamentis), have left behind them bare records of dates, personalities, places and events. In this sense Pherecydes, Hellanicus, Acusilas, and very many others among the Greeks, correspond to our own Cato, Pictor and Piso, who do not understand the adornment (ornetur oratio) of composition -- since it is only of late that decoration of that sort has been brought into this country -- and, so long as their narrative is understood, regard conciseness as the historian's single merit.

Antipater, an admirable man and a close friend of Crassus, raised his crest a little higher, and imparted to history a richer tone: the rest did not embellish (exornatores) their facts, but were chroniclers and nothing more."

"It is as you say," replied Catulus. "But even your friend Coelius did not set off his narrative with any diversity of reflections, or give finish to his famous work by his marshaling of words and a smooth and unvarying flow of style, but he hacked away as best he could, like a man who was no scholar and had no special turn for rhetoric: nevertheless, as you observe, he excelled his forerunners."

"No wonder," returned Antonius, "if this subject has never yet been brilliantly treated in our language. For not one of our own folk seeks after eloquence, save with an eye to its display at the Bar and in public speaking, whereas in Greece the most eloquent were strangers to forensic advocacy, and applied themselves chiefly to reputable studies in general, and particularly to writing history. Indeed even of renowned Herodotus, who first imparted distinction to such work, we have heard that he was in no way concerned with lawsuits, and yet his eloquence is of such quality as to afford intense pleasure, to myself at any rate, so far as I can comprehend what is written in Greek.

"Do you see how great a responsibility the orator has in historical writing? In terms of fluency of discourse and variety it is probably his greatest task, yet I can't find a separate treatment of the subject anywhere in the rules of rhetoric (and they are easily available for inspection).

Everyone knows, of course, that the first law of historiography is to tell the truth and not daring to tell anything but the truth. And its second is that he must boldly tell the whole truth. There must be no suggestion of bias anywhere in his writings, nor of malice.

This foundation (fundamenta) of course is familiar to everyone; the completed structure (exaedificatio) however rests upon the story and the diction. The nature of the subject needs chronological arrangement and geographical representation: and since, in reading of important affairs worth recording, the plans of campaign, the executive actions and the results are successively looked for, it calls also, as regards such plans, for some intimation of what the writer approves, and, in the narrative of achievement, not only for a statement of what was done or said, but also of the manner of doing or saying it; and, in the estimate of consequences, for an exposition of all contributory causes, whether originating in accident, discretion or foolhardiness; and, as for the individual actors, besides an account of their exploits, it demands particulars of the lives and characters of such as are outstanding in renown and dignity.

Then again the kind of language and type of style to be followed are the easy and the flowing, which run their course with unvarying current and a certain placidity, avoiding any of the rough speech we use in Court and the advocate's stinging epigrams. Upon all these numerous and important points, do you observe that any directions are to be found in the rhetoricians' systems? (2.52-2.64).

What Cicero is actually arguing here is that "history" is the very domain of the orator. History in the eyes of the Romans was oratory. Moreover the very role of an orator is political and legal in nature. Roman historiography still involves a series of events in the past arranged in a specific chronological order, and historians may have been eyewitnesses in some cases, but more often than not they would have relied upon earlier written accounts -- accounts which, for the most part, are fragmentary at best (the bane of Classicists, alas). So it's easy to be tricked into thinking that the Romans would have viewed "history" in the same unfiltered light we like to think we portray history in, but in truth their concept of history involved flair, rhetoric. Indeed, Cicero claims that the best historian is an orator.

For further reading I would suggest: A. J. Woodman, "Rhetoric in Classical Historiography"

As for your question about the preservation of ancient ruins, that was a practice of the Romans as well. They were obsessed with old things and would take great pains to preserve and/or rebuild sites that were seen as sacred or old, such as the Lapis Niger, the Temple of Juppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, and the Hut of Romulus.

This is a vexing question because I have little idea of what you think history is. Mostly because you have eliminated one of the things I was going to mention:t the records of kings. We have these for some very ancient kings in Mesopotamia in the 3rd millenium BCE! If I may ask a question, why don't you consider this history?

By the time we come to Herodotus, usually considered the first historian, he is going off of oral traditions maintained by local communities. Therefore, he is relying on history too. He talks about how Sparta and Athens were founded and about the foundation of colonies centuries before his life. Someone had kept those histories before him, they just had not written them down.

The Greeks cared about the past a little differently than we do. They were amazed by Mycenean ruins. The term cyclopean walls (used in archeology, even in New World archeology) to describe walls with large rough-cut stones comes from the ancient Greeks who that that the stones in these walls were so big that humans could not have made them, only cyclopes. However they did not "preserve" them, they used them as foundations for other buildings on the same site.

I would actually count the Torah as an earlier history than Herodotus. If you can trust the Bible's own account, the Torah was written by the 530s BCE. This not only predates Herodotus but also the Persian War. I would count it as history (certainly more of a history as we understand the term than as H understood it) because it was a group of people writing down the important events of the past. It was exactly this type of memory that H used to talk about colonization and other earlier events. The Torah also is arranged chronologically and is pretty much a narrative. Keep in mind that the laws are all given in the form of a really long speech. If we include Joshua (many scholars believe that Joshua was made in the same tradition as Deuteronomy), we have some pretty good political and military history too. I know, I know, Bible! What?! Just keep in mind, to the people writing it, it was about their actual past and the meaning they ascribe to it. God was a huge part of the Israelite past, hence he gets a big part in their history. Herodotus, for what its worth, talks about oracles with total faith and also claims that a spirit gave the Greeks an exhortation before the Battle of Salamis. The gods affect human outcomes and impose themselves upon the events of H' narrative. How is that really any different than the Torah?

As you have no doubt noted, both of these examples are based upon an oral tradition which predated our written source by centuries. I would argue (and this might just be because I am a historian) that the defining characteristic of humanity is our ability and desire to share the past. We are able to teach others what has happened before us. Homo Habilis taught her children how to shape an ax. A Neanderthal man (they were the first to have evidence of ritual burial) told stories of his father as he put him to final rest. Men crossing the Bering Straight had arguments about whether this winter was worse than the last. The younger ones were put to shame by the older who talked about the time it was so cold their sisters froze between footsteps or how bad it was before they figured out that making a shelter out of snow was actually really warm, much warmer than a shelter made of hide. For me, these are acts of history.

Thus I will answer your question. The first historian was the first person to tell her friend what had just happened to her. The first to give advice based upon prior experience. This isn't "research solely for the purpose of history" to paraphrase you, but they are acts that are about sharing the past, not necessarily to aggrandize themselves or for the good of the tribe, but to pass the time or just because they felt like it.

I think the closest thing to what you are looking for that comes to mind for me is the Hittite historical texts. Although the notion that they are "our first secular histories" is badly overblown, they do have certain features of what we would consider modern historical writing as well as features of a very different attitude towards history. One text that's a good place to examine this is the Telepinu Edict, a proclamation explaining the succession and legal reforms put form by the Hittite king Telepinu. This text begins with a historical prologue, reproduced below since is relatively short(the translation by Theo Van den Hout is from William Hallo's The Context of Scripture series):

Historical outline: Labarna

[Fo]rmerly, Labarna was Great King2 and his [son]s, [brother]s, as well as his in-laws, his (further) family members and his troops were united.

§2 (1:5–6) The land was small but wherever he went3 on campaign, he held the enemy country subdued by (his) might.

§3 (1:7–9) He destroyed the lands, one after another, stripped (?) the lands of their power and made them the borders of the sea.4 When he came back from campaign, however, each (of) his sons went somewhere to a country:

§4 (1:10–12) The cities of Ḫupišna, Tuwanuwa, Nenašša, Landa, Zallara, Paršuḫanta (and) Lušna,5 the (se) countries they each governed and the great cities made progress.6 Historical outline: Ḫattušili I

§5 (1:13–16) Afterwards Ḫattušili7 was King and his sons, too, his brothers, his in-laws as well as his (further) family members and his troops were united. Wherever he went on campaign, however, he, too, held the enemy country subdued by (his) might.

§6 (1:17–20) He destroyed the lands one after the other, stripped (?) the lands of their power and made them the borders of the sea. When he came back from campaign, however, each (of) his sons went somewhere to a country, and in his hand the great cities8 made progress.

§7 (1:21–23) When later on, however, the princes’ servants became corrupt, they took to devouring their properties, they took to conspiring continually against their lords and they began to shed their9 blood.10 Historical outline: Muršili I

§8 (1:24–27) When Muršili11 was King in Ḫattuša, his sons, too, his brothers, his in-laws, his (further) family members and his troops were united. The enemy country he held subdued by (his) might, he stripped (?) the lands of their power and made them the borders of the s[e]a.

§9 (1:28–34) He went to the city of Ḫalpa,12 destroyed Ḫalpa and brought Ḫalpa’s deportees (and) its goods to Ḫattuša. Now, later he went to Babylon, he destroyed Babylon13 and fought the Hurrian [troops]. Babylon’s deportees (and) its goods he kept in Ḫat[tuša14].

§1015 And Ḫantil[i16] was cupbearer and he had Muršili’s sister Ḫar[apši]li for his wife.

§1117 Zidanta,18 〈[the …,19 had …] …, the daughter of Ḫantili, for a wife, and he〉20 stole up to Ḫantili and they [committ]ed an evil dee[d]: they killed Muršili and shed (his) blood. Historical outline: Ḫantili I

§12 (1:35–38) Ḫantili got afraid (saying): “Will I be pro[tected? The go]ds pr[ote]cted him. […] … wherever (he) went, the populatio[n …] … the cities of Aš[tat]a, [Šukzi]ya, Ḫurpana, Carchemi[sh21 …] … [troops] they began to [giv]e and troo[ps …].

§13 (1:39–42) And [when Ḫ]antili reac[hed] the city of Tegarama22  a he began to sa]y: “What (is) [t]his (that) I have done? [Why] did I listen to [the words of] Zidan[ta, m]y (?) [son-in-law]? [As soon as] he (however) [reig]ned [as King],23 the gods sough[t] (revenge for) the blood [of Muršili24].

§14 (1:43–46) [… the H]urrian [tr]oops, chased (like) foxes25 in the b[ushes,] they [c]alled. [When the Hurrian enemy (?)26] came [t]o Ḫatti-L[an]d, he [… -]ed [ and …] in (?) [the l]and he roamed (?). […] … they called and the[m …]. §15 (1:47–52) (almost completed lost). §16 (1:53–57) [… a]nd the Queen of the city of [Šukziy]a27 [… The Que]en was dy[in]g. [… Ilal]iuma secretly s[e]n[t] out palace [attendant]s and [… -]ed: “May the Queen of Šukziya die!”, so [they seized28] her [and ki]lled (her) [together with her children29 ].

§17 (1:58–62) When Ḫantili inquired into (the case of) the Queen of Šu[kziya and her children (saying:) “Who [has] ki[lled] them?”, the Chief of the palace attendants brought word. They rounded up30 h[er fam]ily and [drove] them to Tega[rama]. a They chased them in the bushes and [they] d[ied (?)].

§18 (1:63–65) And when Ḫantili [gre]w ol[d] and began to become a god, Zidanta killed Ḫantili’s son, [Pišeni31] together with his sons, [and] his [chie]f servants he killed. Historical outline: Zidanta I

§19 (1:66–68) And Zidanta bec[a]me King. The gods sought (revenge for) the blood of Pišeni, so the gods made him Ammuna,32 his begotten (son), his enemy33 and he killed his father Zidanta. Historical outline: Ammuna

§20 (1:69–71) And Ammuna became King. The gods sought (revenge for) the blood of his father Zidanta and [they did] no[t make] him, the grain, wine, oxen (and) sheep [prosper (?)] in his hand [but it all …] in (his) hand.

§21 (Column 2:1–7) Now, the land became his enemy: the cities of … agga, [Mat]ila, Galmiya, Adaniy[a], Arzawiya,34 Šallapa, Parduwata and Aḫḫula. But wherever (his) troops went35 on campaign, they did not come back successfully. When Ammuna, too, became god, Zuru, the Chief of the Royal Bodyguard, in those same days secretly sent, of his own offspring, his son Taḫurwaili,36 Man of the Gold Spear, and he killed Titti (ya)’s family together with his sons. Historical outline: Ḫuzziya I

§22 (2:8–12) He sent Taruḫšu, a courier, as well and he killed Ḫantili together with [his] sons. Now, Ḫuzziya became King and Telipinu had Ištapariya, his37 sister of first rank, 〈as his wife〉. When Ḫuzziya wanted to kill them, the matter came to light and Telipinu chased them away.

Now if we read this carefully, we can see aspects of what you are defining as history. The text reaches a great distance back into the past, going back to the quasi-mythical first Hittite king Labarna and to the oldest attested Hittite king Hattusili I. It also has a stronger narrative structure, outlining how each king murdered his predecessor and in turn was murdered by his successor. Each murder is caused by the previous murder, and the repetition of disasters links them together to suggest a chain of events-'we started out as x, and then y happened to lead to z". The text even attempts to link this succession struggle to broader political problems, by describing the Hurrian attacks in the context of internal political disaster.

At the same time, there are limits to treating a text like this one as disinterested secular history. First, the text is not a neutral accounting, but rather a argument for the necessity of the king's reforms. The rest of the proclamation details a succession rule, prohibits royal bloodshed, and authorizes the assembly of Hattusa, or Panku, to intervene if the king becomes too bloody-minded:

Furthermore, whoever becomes King and seeks evil for (his) brother (or) sister, you too are his Council and tell him straight: “This (is) a matter of blood.” Look at the tablet (that says):54 “Formerly, blood (shed) became excessive in Ḫattuša, and the gods took it out on the royal family.”

So we can see that this is a very clear argument: The historical narrative is constructed to explain why such strong rules are needed to curb royal infighting and it talks specifically about those aspects of Hittite history that support this point. We can even see a sort of golden age-decline-revival tone at work here, especially given how later in the text Telipinu explains that unlike his predecessors he did not execute those who did him ill but instead provided for them and how he restored much damage that had been done to the empire.

It also couches its explanation in supernatural terms. The cause of each murder is specified to be the god's anger working through the successor and the text notes that 'Formerly in Hatti bloodshed became excessive and the gods took it out on the royal family'. The gods are always playing a role in history and history is as much a record of human agency as divine agency. We don't really have a "historical pattern" that's distinguished from what pleases or displeases the gods clearly here.

So we have a kind of text that is clearly historical-one that takes surviving documentation of the past and synthesizes it into a narrative that explains a particular situation course of events in a logical fashion-but is clearly not at all like our modern Rankean approach to history in its dependence on non-historical formats(in this case the edict, although we do have one possible case of a larger independent historical project in the form of the Annals of Suppiluliuma I and Mursili II), its very specific explanatory purpose, and inseparability from questions of morality and religious belief.

Separate from the ancient antecedents, the general "father" of the modern approach to history (reliance on primary sources, ethos of disinterestedness, some semblance of an idea that there is a "method" to approaching the past that is separate from fable and folklore, an idea that history "as it was" is separate from history as you'd like to imagine it to be) is generally considered to be Leopold von Ranke, the 19th-century German historian. Like all such "fathers," choosing to hold him up as the "founder" glosses over a lot of other people who were doing similar things, and is itself a statement about what isn't meant to be "history" (e.g. Hegel, a contemporary of Ranke, is generally put very firmly in the "philosophy" camp, even though Hegel thought of himself as doing quite a lot of "history" of a type). Even then, it is hard to read any modern work of history today, and a work of Ranke's vintage, and think they have a whole lot in common except some bare-bones structure. In the same way that a plasma physicist today is going to see some basic commonalities with Galileo (empiricism, observation, experimentation, mathematical arguments) but quite a lot of differences (e.g. a completely different institutional network for the production of knowledge). Where one draws these lines — whether one wants to say one's discipline is painfully old or really quite new — can be ideological statements.

It is worth noting that the decision to preserve relics of the past is entirely separate from a sense that history is valuable for its own sake. The Renaissance scholars fetishized any knowledge passed down from the Greeks, for example, not because they valued the past for its own sake, but because they thought the Greeks had somehow touched upon some ultimate truth and this would be valuable for their present day. The preservation of past ruins has often been linked with attempts to lay claim to past glories and past accomplishments (i.e. the Romans).