It is a case of oral history providing specific, accurate information about a historical event, and archaeology providing a more precise chronology and a detailed material record of what was buried.

The two forms of knowledge are complementary.

Each adds to the total understanding in ways that the other cannot fully replicate.

After excavation, the oral history continued to contribute to interpretation.

When specific object types were recovered, elders who had knowledge of traditional technology could provide context for what they were used for, how they were made, and what their cultural significance was.

This ethnographic context is not something that can be generated from archaeological analysis alone.