Uztaro

Euskal Zibilizazioa liburuaren inguruan azkeneko hiru urteetan gertatutako arrakastaz nahiz kritikaz balantzea egiten da artikulu honetan eta J. Lakarrak UZTAROn liburu horri buruz agertutako kritika luzeari kontrakritika ere egiten zaio. Zientzia-mailan, Euskal Zibilizazioa-ren hipotesiaren egituran metatzen diren maila subjektiboak nahiz objektiboak ere aztergai ditugu eta, horrekin loturik, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatean garatzen den ikerketa entziklopedistaren inguruko ezkutukoak aztertuko dira, unibertsitate horretan sortzen den pentsamenduaren klase-edukia agerian uzteko. Gainera, Euskal Herriaren iraganaldiari buruz ikerketak egiteko, Euskal Zibilizazioa-n agertzen den diziplinarteko izaera bide egoki eta bakarra delako iritzia aztertuko da, eta J. Lakarraren idazkiaren hizkuntzalaritza-mailako kritika konparatista murriztuaren (ez-sintetikoaren) izaera mugatuaz hitz egingo dugu.

This article offers a balanced appraisal of both the success and criticism that the book Euskal Zibilizazioa has elicited during the last three years. In particular, it makes a critical analysis of the piece written by Mr. J. Lakarra about the aforementioned book and published in UZTARO magazine. This article, which by the way, refutes and contradicts Mr. J. Lakarra\'s contentions, analyzes the different existing levels of subjectivity and objectivity in science, when the time comes to structure hypotheses such as those offered in Euskal Zibilizazioa. It expresses strong disapproval of the encyclopedic characteristics in the research being carried out at the UPV-EHU. It also questions the kind of subject matter and material being used in such investigation. Furthermore, the article points out the interdisciplinary nature of the research done in Euskal Zibilizazioa. This comprehensive, multi-discipline approach, appears to be the only correct way to proceed when it comes time to study the issue of the Basque Country\'s past. Through careful analysis, the article also reveals the forced parameters which are used in linguistic critiques. Such critiques are based on non-synthetical, inflexible comparativeness as made evident in the writing of Mr. J. Lakarra.