Time immemorial

[2] Most frequently, the phrase "time immemorial" appears as a legal term of art in judicial discussion of common law development and, in the United States, the property rights of Native Americans.

[3] Medieval historian Richard Barber describes this as "the watershed between a primarily oral culture and a world where writing was paramount".

[9] In Knowles v. Dow, a New Hampshire court found that a regular usage for twenty years, unexplained and uncontradicted, is sufficient to warrant a jury in finding the existence of an immemorial custom.

[16] Since the Pueblo de Zia decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims in 1964, oral traditional evidence has received increased judicial endorsement.

[16] In affirming the use of Native American oral traditional evidence to establish title to land, the Pueblo de Zia court described the testimony as having been handed down between tribal council members from "time immemorial".

Richard I the Lionheart being anointed during his coronation in Westminster Abbey in 1189, from a 13th-century chronicle. Any time before the accession of Richard I is considered "time immemorial" in English law.