All sources - every bit of evidence about the past - requires source criticism to evaluate what flaws have insinuated themselves into the weave of information presented. The difference between a written primary source and recorded oral testimony that is not first hand can be summed up with the following:

Historians continually find that primary source documents about the past have flaws that need to be identified and isolated from the telling of an accurate history and perception of the past.

Historians (and folklorists) are often surprised to find that a historical legend includes information that is accurate and can be relied upon in the telling of history and perception of the past.

In other words, historical legends are sometimes surprisingly accurate and primary sources are sometimes surprisingly inaccurate. Well, OK, maybe we're actually not that surprised about either, but there is a core assumption that primary sources depict the past (but we find they are flawed) and that historical legends are inaccurate and inflated beyond use (but we sometimes find they are useful).

Of course folklorists don't often look to historical legends to understand the period described. Rather, they look at a historical legend to understand the people who told it - it is a different use of the source. But that aside, there has been ample analysis of historical legends and their surprising value in capturing the nature of past events.

Of particular use here is a collection of essays edited by Reimund Kvideland and Henning K. Sehmsdorf: Nordic Folklore (1989). This includes essays by Lauri Honko, who is one of the great modern theoreticians when it comes to the nature of legend. A particularly good essay for your question is a chapter by Brynjulf Alver, "Historical Legends and Historical Truth."

The bottom line is that oral tradition can be a surprising conveyor of accurate information about the past. As I began - all sources require source criticism. It is simply important to understand that written primary documents require a certain type of analysis while oral tradition requires another species of analysis. The filter for oral tradition must be more intense if it is to be used to understand an historical event, and without the anchor of written documents, it is difficult to use oral tradition, alone, to peer into a remote past.

/r/IndianCountry founder, mod, and Virginia Indian reporting in. The Custalow family at Mattaponi circulated and promoted a series of "sacred oral traditions" concerning this exact subject matter. A recent publication from NMAI afforded them too much credibility; one of many problems with that publication.

[Disclosure: I am related to the author, the families, and the subject matter, so please pardon my brevity and generalities. And kindly don't mention me, rather, verify for yourself.]

The same is true for the supplemental oral histories promoted by the Tayac faction (the Piscataway Indian Nation), if you are also going to be teaching about entities contemporary to the Powhatan Paramountcy in the early colonial period.

I'll defer to /u/itsallfolklore and /u/Reedstilt on the latest developments in academia, however I would recommend Powhatan Foreign Relations if you're interested in the political landscape, in particular. Other works by Dr. Helen Rountree also provide generous footnotes (where her works truly live) for further inquiry.

I'd also like to hear other recommendations to keep current, anyone would oblige.

You have received a message from on high! By which I mean someone on twitter had a suggested resource for you. Check it out here!