In communities where written records are thin, oral history is often the strongest thread available. But testimony is only as useful as the rigour behind it: who is speaking, what they witnessed first-hand, and how their account squares with everything else we know.
Evidence, not anecdote
We record provenance for every account — who told us, what they claim to know directly, and what they heard from others. First-hand testimony carries different weight than a story passed down, and we treat the two differently.
Then we cross-check. Names, places, and dates from oral accounts are tested against documentary sources wherever they exist. Where memory and record agree, confidence grows; where they diverge, we flag it rather than quietly choosing one.
What it can and can't do
Treated this way, oral history corroborates and extends the written trail — reaching back into periods and places the records never covered. What it cannot do is stand alone as proof; its strength is in combination with everything else.
