<p>This excellent book on legal historical method contains a series of articles based upon papers given at the Nineteenth British Legal History Conference, which was held at the University of Exeter in 2009. Some contributions consider in detail different approaches to legal historical research, and the methodological consequences that these can have for the discipline. Several writers emphasise that legal historical research may be legitimately pursued in various different ways (see the articles of Professors Heirbaut and Ibbetson in particular, at 118 and 134 respectively), but nonetheless some common methodological assumptions do emerge from the book. Other contributors focus on the difficulties that are inherent in studying certain types of legal sources from an historical perspective. These broad themes of <italic>Making Legal History</italic> will be considered here in turn. Where appropriate, reference will be made to the ways in which the volume may be of particular use to those working in the field of Scottish legal history.</p>
<p>Professor Sir John Baker's highly illuminating article, entitled “Reflections on ‘doing’ legal history”, begins by considering the ways in which legal historians select subjects for study. He lucidly explains the well-known problems that can arise if historians set out to find answers to modern legal questions in the older texts of the law. This can result in anachronism (9), a point that is also made clearly in the fascinating and well-written contribution from Professor McHugh, entitled “The politics of historiography and the taxonomies of the colonial past: law, history and the tribes” (particularly at 166–170). Baker explains that his own preference is for what he describes as a more “archaeological” approach. This directs legal historians to “delve into the available sources first and see what kinds of question they raise or might answer” (7). Over time, “[a]s we uncover more evidence”, Professor Baker suggests that historians will collectively be able to refine the resulting research questions “until now and again we see enough light to propose new answers” (16–17). Professor Brand provides examples of how fruitful this approach can be in his article on “Editing law reports and doing legal history” (26–27).</p>
<p>Other articles in this volume implicitly accept these methodological assumptions, and seek to build upon them in light of the particular research experiences of the contributors. Brand's article provides invaluable guidance for...</p>
