A REPLY TO J.A. SYBESMA IRONSIDE

S ilence is the correct response to an unflattering critical commentary that does not misrepresent one's views. But for a commentary that seems to have sprung from a complete misreading of the text, one can only reply loudly and at length. I will deal with the criticisms levelled by Professor Ironside in order of occurrence.     

A late pre-Islamic burial at al-Khatt, U.A.E.

Gravegoods comprising local and imported pottery together with iron arrowheads were 'rescued'from a burial at al-Khatt, U.A.E., in 1993. Their relation to the chronology established at Mleiha suggests that they date from the late 3rd to early 2nd centuries BC, a period as yet little known in the Emirate of Ras al-Khaimah.     

A.F. Pollard*

A.F. Pollard is now better remembered for founding the Institute of Historical Research than he is for his scholarship. In his heyday, however, Pollard was a formidable and prolific historian, primarily of parliament and the Tudor period. Pollard has been characterised both as a modernist and as a whig historian. Rejecting romantic invocations of liberty, he extolled instead the sovereign nation state, pinpointing the 16th century as the moment when it was achieved. Pollard rejected anachronistic accounts of parliament's development: for him, the assembly had grown by accident (out of the medieval king's council), rather than by design. This adaptability had ensured parliament's longevity and would preserve it into the future. Pollard revered the English parliament all the more for its embodiment of this national good fortune. Pollard helped to professionalise the discipline of history, but his own writings could be found wanting when measured against the standards that he had advocated. Criticism of his approach and assumptions comes easily now. Yet, upon reacquaintance, historians of parliament may find enduring interest in Pollard's shrewd and extensive work.