concluding remarks: looking back to the future of legal history to rebuild their legal systems, under pressure from the Western nations to adopt their rules of organizing law and justice because of increasingly globalized trade contacts. Methodologically, our aim is not to reduce complexity by constructing stable entities. It is challenging to capture the fluidity of the transformation process and to make it the basis for comparison, especially for a period when not only the entire legal order changed fundamentally, but so did the legal language on which this order was grounded. Research that takes this into account and refuses to build on secondary literature can only be conducted as a group. Each of us brings the language skills for one of the countries. In a constant exchange, we chart the common stages of the transformation process in each of the three countries, asking for the reasons for the different dynamics we can observe. This exchange builds on each group member’s engagement in translating the legal culture that they work on for the others. The method is an experimental but fruitful way of gauging what the challenge of modernity meant for legal practice. I am convinced that in order to gain a full picture, we must take account of non-European experiences of modernity. My research deals with the entanglement of European and non-European legal cultures. Translation and comparison, however, are equally important to projects dealing with different spaces or networks in Europe. Many approaches for capturing these entanglements were developed in legal history long before the global turn. The global turn, however, brings reflection and insight, and new opportunities to learn from one another. My vision of legal history is one where these insights, thoughts, and learning outcomes benefit European legal history too. Kjell Åke Modéer once spoke of the butterfly garden of legal history. I with this would like to add another colourful butterfly to the garden. 363 The way ahead
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=