Iv.Javakhishvili INSTITUTE OF HISTORY. AND ETHNO.

english version

THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY VIII

Dedicated to the 900th anniversary of founding
of Gelati monastery

MANANA KHIDASHELI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

SYMBOLISM OF COLOUR IN ANCIENT FARMING CULTURES OF THE NEAR EAST
Summary
The primitive mind of an archaic man perceived the world around him as
indivisible and animate environment, where the meaning of all
phenomena was hidden behind numerous symbols.
Colour had a symbolic meaning as well. The most significant were red,
black and white colours.
Red was a symbol of life, hence it was associated with life. But red
was the colour of blood as well. Therefore, it was also linked with
death, due to which it was actively used in burial rituals.
White, as an archetypal colour, was the universal sign of purity. It
was linked with the `centre~ of soul and was interpreted as a symbol
of death as well. White denoted the temporary inaccessibility of man,
his openness and readiness to come into contact with the sacred. White
was associated with the Moon and femininity, and denoted the passive
aspect of creation.
Black could stand for both absolute fullness and emptiness. Black
signified chaos, death. It was linked with the nether world and its
powers. It denoted darkness and the possibility of emergence of new
life in darkness.

__________________________________________________________________

MANANA KHVEDELIDZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

DID THERE EXIST A MYTH ABOUT PHARAOH IN ANCIENT EGYPT?
Summary
The author suggests, that in Ancient Egypt there existed mythological
texts, justifying the divine nature of a pharaoh. The suggestion is
based on the parallel analysis of the texts of the so-called
`political part~ of the `Memphite Treatise~ and the excerpts with the
same content from the `Pyramid Texts~. The data of the texts are
viewed in the light of real historical events, which seem to have
taken place in the pre-dynastic and early dynastic periods of Egyptian
history.

__________________________________________________________________

NINO CHAREKISHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

FOR DATING OF THE CONTRACT CONCLUDED BETWEEN IŠMERIKA-HITTITES
ARNUWANDA I OR ARNUWANDA II

Summary
Among the numerous political units of Hittites Eastern periphery
Išmerika is distinguished. For the first time Išmerika – one of the
most important political unions of Hittites Eastern periphery – is
studied by us on purpose. Its investigation makes clear the history of
middle Hittites kingdom and the questions of Hittites Eastern
peripheries connected with the South Caucasus.
On the Basis of translation of Išmerika Contract into Georgian and
thanks to its analyses, we discussed Hittites middle kingdom history
and presented in a new manner the disputable questions of this period
in Hittites’ history.
In our paper we especially touched the disputable questions connected
with the contract dating: the preamble of the text names king
Arnuwanda, who had concluded this contract. Was he Arnuwanda I, who
reigned before Suphiluliuma I or was he Arnuwanda II – the son of
Suphiluliuma I?
On the Basis of the Hittites history and the written sources analyses,
we made the following conclusions: 1) Arnuwanda I reigned longer than
Arnuwanda II; 2) Arnuwanda I spent all his reign time in military
operations, we can not say the same about Arnuwanda II; 3)
Suphiluliuma does not name in his Annals Arnuwanda II. If the fact or
facts like these used to take place, he did mention them; 4) The
sources confirm, that the Eastern periphery gets active in the period
of Arnuwanda I reign; 5) Arnuwanda, who concluded the contract, got a
wife and a son; 6) Arnuwanda II died without heir and younger than the
son of Arnuwanda I. The sources don’t mention his spouse either.
That’s why we think, that Ašmišaruma – the son of Arnuwanda – couldn’t
be the son of Arnuwanda II. Accordingly, he is considеred as the son
of Arnuwanda I.
We have made an effort to back our consideration that the military
operations in South-Eastern Anatolia are connected with the name of
Arnuwanda I and not with Arnuwanda II, and that the contract with
Išmerika was concluded by him, with necessary arguments and facts.

__________________________________________________________________

IRENE TATISHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

`WICKED~ DEITY OF THE KING HATTUSILI III
Summary
     A `wicked~ deity (huwappa- DINGIR) is mentioned in the
`Autobiography~ of the Hittite king Hattusili III (1260 -1245). I
suppose that the identification of this deity must be viewed in the
light of the hypothesis concerning the religious reform of Muwatalli
II, the eldest brother of Hattusili, who, introducing the cult of the
Storm-god Pihassassi in the Hittite pantheon, tried to change
fundamentally the structure of the Hittite pantheon and who for
religious reasons, like Akhenaton, transferred the capital to a new
place (to Tarhuntassa). Considering the counter-reformatory spirit of
Hattusili, reflected in the texts surveyed in the article (CTH 383 # 2
I 23-, KUB 21.38, CTH 383 #3 I 13’-15’), I would suggest that
Hattusili means the Storm-god Pihassassi, personal god of Muwatalli,
under the `wicked~ deity.

__________________________________________________________________

NANA BAKHSOLIANI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

THE LEAD STRIPS FROM KULULU
Summary
The Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions executed on lead strips,
discovered at Kululu, the former territory of Tabal, dated to the
9th-8th cc. BC, are so far the only written sources for the
reconstruction of economic life of this major political entity of
Ancient Anatolia.
The lead strips relate about regular payment of barley to persons
living in various `towns~ of Tabal.
One of the inscriptions (Kululu II) is devoted to the description of
offerings to statues of deities. The information concerning the
history of cattle-breeding in Tabal is also of special interest.
Finally, the lead strips under study contain rich onomastic material,
unknown before (names of `towns~, individual persons), the analysis of
which facilitates greatly the comprehensive characterization of ethno-
cultural processes occurring in this major area of Anatolia in the
first millennium BC.

__________________________________________________________________

NATIA PHIPHIA
Ivane Javakhishvili State University of Tbilisi

ON THE ETHNICITY OF SOME TRIBES (HENIOKHIS, SANIGS) INHABITING THE
TERRITORY OF WEST AND SOUTH-WEST GEORGIA
Summary

There are many opinions about the ethnical belonging of the Heniokhi
tribes in historiography. Some historians consider that they are
Kartvelian tribes connecting them with the Iganiekhi of Urartian
sources. Some of them connect Heniokhis with Chans, others with Svani
tribe. Some other historians think Heniokhi to be connected with
Abkhazian tribes. Ancient Greek sources suggest that in the 2nd
century Sanings inhabited the territory, earlier belonging to northern
`Heniokhi~. This consideration seems very logical as they are
ethnically connected. Heniokhi is the same as Saniokhi and Sanikhi.
Besides, Sanigs are the ethno-political successors of Heniokhi in the
north in 1st-2nd centuries, and Makron-Sans and Heniokhi established
the united state in the South. Some scientists think `hen~ and `sen~
are the same forms, but they usually connect this with the Kartvelian
linguistic area. Though, when the Greek term starts with `spiritus
asper~, it must be linked with the Ancient Greek. `Spiritus asper~
appears when a phoneme is lost. Usually this is   phoneme (digamma),
but in some cases it could appear after the lost of `s~. `Heniokhi~ is
recorded in very old Greek sources as `Saniokhi~, then the first
phoneme `s~ was lost and `~ before the `~ was converted into `~.
So, `Heniokhi~ has derived from `Saniokhi~.
The Hypothesis of connecting Sanigs with Sadzi, which is very popular
in Abkhazian historiography, is based exclusively on the meretricious
phonetic similarity and besides, these tribes must not be connected
because of the big chronological distance between them. Phonetically
`Sanigi~ is more related with the form `Sani/Chani~.
So, in our opinion, Sanigs, as the Heniokhi are the West Georgian,
i.e. Colchian tribes.

__________________________________________________________________

ZURAB KIKNADZE
Ivane Javakhishvili State University of Tbilisi

TYPOLOGY OF THE LEGITIMATION OF ROYAL POWER
AND THE `LIFE OF PARNAVAZ~

Summary
        Any power, irrespective of its type and origin, naturally, stands in
need of legitimation, authoritative justification in the face of its
own people and the outer world – even in the face of one’s own
judgment . The author focuses attention on the institution of kingship
– one of the more widespread forms of power – being in a position to
follow its origin and functioning  in different civilizations and
cultures of the Ancient World. The texts of legitimation contain
realities of ideological (religious and mythological) order, whose
quality and character  are determined by the cultural level of a given
society. The plot of the historical narrative  on Parnavaz (`The Life
of Parnavaz~), the founder of the first royal dynasty in Georgia,
serves as the basic text of the study, viz. the `dream  of Parnavaz~
that contains a whole complex of mythologems and symbols connected
with the conception of the origin and source of royal power (such as
`sun dew~, the royal hunting, discovery of treasure and etc.).

__________________________________________________________________

LELA PATARIDZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology

MIRIAN AND HIS REIN: IDEOLOGICAL ASPECT
Summary
It is scarcely doubtful that the social order not simply bases on
using force and compulsory means and that the ruling class rules
mainly by attaining social consent based on shared ideas about origin
and legitimacy of power. Hence it is impossible to represent more or
less comprehensive historical picture without comprehension of shared
ideas and concepts. Many questions arise concerning the ancient and
early medieval history of Georgia, one of which can be like this: What
was the royal ideology like in Georgia before Bagrationi’s dynasty
emerged, representatives of which claimed to be the descendents of the
Biblical king David? Study of the issue is relevant to be based on
`Kartlis Tskhovreba~ (`History of Kartly Kingdom~). We consider that
the above claim was the continuous historyographic tradition
maintained by the ruling circles, which preserved the ideas and
ideological interests of the latter.
        `The Life of the King Mirian~ is a part of `Kartlis Tzkhovreba~ – a
narrative of the reign of the first Christian king – Mirian, who at
the same time is represented here as the founder of `Khosroiani~
(Sasanid) dynasty in Georgia. According to the tradition, the above-
mentioned dynasty held the Georgian throne from the second half of the
third century till Bagrationi times, which came to the rule at the
second half of the sixth century. Almost all the descendents of
Mirian, as the subsequent parts of `Kartlis Tskhovreba~ narrate,
boasted of such origin and deemed it as a source of legitimacy for
their reign. It seems logical to conclude, that the original version
of `The Life of the King Mirian~ might be contemporary to the reign of
the dynasty in Georgia as the text has an ideological function. The
above presented point of view is proved by the concepts and ideas of
`The Life~ characteristic of the Sasanian policy, ideology and
structure of its court in the Persian Empire.
        But the idea of legitimacy went beyond the dynastical claims. King
needed more features to attain loyalty of his environment. The
narrative about conversion of Mirian to Christianity is to be
interpreted as sacralization of king’s political figure in the context
of the new religion. `The Life of the King Mirian~ declares that
Mirian for Georgians was `the most beloved King, because…~ (1) he
`forgot~ the Persian language and `learned Georgian~,( 2) treated well
idolatric priests and (3) `adorned~ Pharnavaz’s  (the first Georgian
king’s) grave. All these accounts speak about the adherence of Mirian
to the cultural and historical values of `all Georgians~. So, the
cultural identity along with dynastical belonging was the most
important aspects of legitimacy of the king.

__________________________________________________________________

DAVID MERKVILADZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH CONSTRUCTION
IN ZEDAZENI AND SHIOMGVIME MONASTERIES
Summary
The first church in Zedazeni monastery was built after the death of
its founder, Saint Ioane Zedazneli, who had chosen ascetic activities.
The church should have been constructed in 560s-570s immediately after
the reburial of Saint John on the Zedazeni mount, in the place of his
spiritual heroism, according to Saint’s last will.
In the 8th century the new three-nave basilica was erected by
katholikos of Georgia Clement. As a result, the old church after
insignificant modification was included into the basilica as its north
nave.
The oldest church in Shiomgvime is the cross-dome church of St. John
the Baptist. It was erected by Saint Shio, founder of the monastery,
for the common liturgy after increasing the number of monks in the
cloister. Based on hagiographic source and architectural analysis, the
construction of the temple may be dated by the middle of the 6th
century.
It is the only church of the given period in Shiomgvime monastery.
More exact information about the church construction in the monastery
gives the short wording of the `Life of Saint Shio~. According to it,
three churches were built by St. Shio at the same time.

__________________________________________________________________

VAKHTANG GOILADZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

WHY DID ERISMTAVARI OF KARTLI STEPHANOZ II AND HIS
FAMILY MOVED TO EGRISI?
Summary
There are fragmentary  and diverse accounts in ancient Georgian
written sources about Erismtavars of Kartli in the VI – VIII
centuries. Such character of the sources is associated with existence
of two dynasties of Erismtavres in Kartli – Parnavazians and
Bagrations in 682/685. Accordingly, one of the ancient georgian
authors, the one who had continued Juansher’s history and compiler of
`Matiane Kartlisa~, gave us accounts about Parnavazians. Another one –
Sumbat Davitis-dze gave us accounts only about Bagrations’ dynasty.
According to the latter, since the middle of the VIth century Kartli
was ruled solely by the Bagrations.
At the end of 1970s Stephanoz II Parnavaziani was identified with
Stephanoz III Bagrationi (A. Bogveradze, M. Sanadze, D. Muskhelishvili
et al.). As a result, the point of view of Sumbat Davitisdze was
declared as a historical reality and this opinion was introduced into
text-books of universities.
The following is ascertained in the presented paper: since 628 the
Erismtavaris of Kartli were Parnavazians. In ca 682/685 Nerse I,
representative of Bagrationis dynasty, took Erismtavari’s throne with
support of the Byzantians. Erismtavari Stephanoz II was forced to move
to Egrisi with his family and he died there.  His younger son Archil
received the right to govern Egrisi from the Byzantian emperor Lev III
Isavrian in 719. In 731 Archil returned back to Kartli and received
Kakheti instead of Egrisi from Stephanoz III. Since this time
Stephanoz III adopted the title `Lord of Eristavt-Erismtavis of
Georgians and Mengrelians. This fact is reflected in a lapidary
inscription made in his memory after his death in 739.

__________________________________________________________________

ELDAR MAMISTVALISHVILI
Gori State University
GIORGI-PROKHORE OR GIORGI AND PROKHORE?
(FROM THE HISTORY OF HOLY CROSS MONASTERY IN JERUSALEM)

Summary
According to Georgian historiography it is known that Jvari Monastery
was founded in the 11th century by Shavshetian church figure Giorgi-
Prokhore. The study of historical sources made me sure that a person
who had double name Giorgi-Prokhore never existed. There were tow
church figures: Giorgi and Prokhore who worked together in the
monastery. They succeeded each other as the priors of the monastery.
The viewpoint can be proved by the colophon-postscripts of the Gospel
of John and Matthew copied in 1038, `Teachings~ by Basil the Great and
`The Life of Fathers~ copied in the monastery of Jvari in 1039-1040
and in 1055.
It must be mentioned that the colophons were published by different
researchers in different times. It seams that the name of the builder
of the monastery was read differently. The reason of that may be
damaged manuscript restored and filled in by copyist. The synaxarion
copies of `The Life of Prokhore~ and other written sources are well
known. In each source this church figure is mentioned only as
Prokhore. The second name Giorgi is not mentioned in the inscriptions
of Jvari Monastery at all: everywhere he is mentioned as Prokhore.

__________________________________________________________________

KETEVAN KUTATELADZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

FROM THE HISTORY OF ARMENIAN-GEORGIAN RELATIONS
AT THE BEGINING OF THE 13-TH CENTURY
Sammary
     The question of confessional unity is important but rather
contradictory in the history of Armenian-Georgian political relations.
Inspite of many attempts, discussions and arrainging of church
meetings, the unity on this subgect between two peoples didn`t take
place. In the first half of the XII century, when David the Builder
joined to the Georgian kingdom a nambed of Armenian communities there
was put on the agenda the criation of the confessional union with
armenian society but the church councils hald on this ocasion was a
failure.
     The question of Armenian-Georgian confessional unity was raised
again at the begining of the 13-th  century. In nearly1204 there was
held a church meeting in Georgia, where was discussed the question of
truth of sacrament, of eucharist by Georgian and Armenian rites. As a
result of this  meeting Ivane Mkhargrdzeli, who was a  adherent
to ,,Armenian religion”, adopted Orthodoxy.The truth of orthodoxy was
recognized by his elder brother Zakharia, but publicly he couldn`t
refuse of monophisity, because he didn`t want to spoil his attentions
with Armenian society.Though Zakharia himself tried to instill the
Orthodox dogmata into Armenian church and introduce into army practice
of using of so called ,,moving altar” he met with terrible resistance
of Armenian clergy at the church councils which were held by his order
in Lore (1205) and Anis(1207). At Anis councils Mkhitar Goshi,
Zakharia`s confessor held a speech, from which there was seen that
behind everything this was standing the Georgian court.

__________________________________________________________________

ALEKSANDRE TVARADZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology

GEOGRAPHICAL LORE IN THE MIDDLE AGES:
THE LATIN WEST AND THE CHRISTIAN EAST

Summary

This paper reviews geographical lore of the Latin West and the
Christian East in the Middle Ages. I made a short survey of
geographical, cartographic and literary sources from the Latin West
materials. I basically refer to Georgian and Byzantine monuments from
the Christian East material: the geographical treatise, which is
preserved in Queen Mariam’s manuscript of „Kartlis Tskhovreba“ („The
Life of Georgia“) and the World Journey by Ephraim from Iberia, the
account on which is preserved by George Sphrantzes, a Byzantine
author. These materials give rich and vital information on the
existing geographical lore in the Medieval Christian East.

__________________________________________________________________

VAZHA KIKNADZE

Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

THE GEORGIAN ICON  IN THE PETRITSON MONASTERY AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR
THE HISTORY OF GEORGIA
Summary
The inscription on the Petritsoni (Bachkovo nowadays, Bulgaria) icon
of the Mother of God (`Hodegetria~ icon type) is analyzed in the
article.
Text of an old Georgian inscription with the precise transcription in
the new Georgian alphabet is presented (Abbreviations and missing
words are restored).
According to the inscription, the icon was adorned with chasing by
donation of the brothers Atanase and Okropir Egnatashvili from
Petritsoni monastery. The brothers originated from the historic
Georgian province Tao. Undoubtedly they were historian-chroniclers.
With absolute accuracy in four chronological systems, they have
indicated the date of creation of the Icon (1311), have mentioned the
Byzantine Emperor of that time and his co-governors (Andronicus the
2nd, Michael the 9th and Andronicus the 3rd) and also the kings of
western and eastern Georgia (Konstantine, the son of David Narin and
the unknown king of the eastern Georgia – Demetre).
The author has established that Demetre Bagrationi mentioned in the
inscription is the grandson of Dimitry the 2nd (1270-1289), the Self-
Devoted, and son of the Georgian king of Eastern Georgia Vakhtang the
3rd. According to the anonymous Georgian historian of the 14th
century, after the death of Vakhtang the 3rd his son Demetre was
possessing Dmanisi – the south strategic and trade center of Georgia.
The author reckons unreasonable all points stated earlier that Demetre
was the co-governor of western Georgia’s king Konstantine (as it is
known he had no successors) and that he was the so-called `king of
province~, of Dmanisi in particular. In this case he would not be
mentioned in the distant Petritsoni along with the king of the western
Georgia, Konstantine.

__________________________________________________________________

TSIALA GHVABERIDZE
Georgian National Museum

ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN OF THE GEORGIANS INTO JERUSALEM IN 1527
Summary
Georgian written sources give account about military campaigns of the
united Georgian armed forces to seize the Holy Land (16th century).
Apart from accounts of the Georgian historians, there are also
narrative legends concerning this campaign, as well as different
viewpoints about reliability of the fact.
Nowadays many debatable questions have been defined more exactly by
means of new material.
Having studied and analyzed historical sources, epigraphical monuments
and accounts preserved by oral tradition (focusing on the latter) I
came to the conclusion, that the Georgian Kings (Giorgi IX – king of
Kartli, Bagrat – king of Imereti, Levan – king of the Kakheti) and
atabag of Samtskhe Kvarkvare campaigned in Jerusalem in 1527.

__________________________________________________________________

PAPUNA GABISONIA
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

FOR THE QUESTION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF GELATI EPISCOPACY
Summary
In the first part of  the 16 th century the  important church reform
was held in the kingdom of Imereti, in Western Georgia. With the
decision of the king of Imereti Bagrat III (1510_1565) and the
katholikos of Western Georgia Malakia Abashidze the episcopacy pulpits
of Gelati and Khoni were established. And the big part of kutaisi
Eparchy was given to them.
According to the historical sources this event is dated in two ways in
1519 and in 1529, and it causes different ideas between the
historians.
According to the document dated in 1527 there was still a  Monastery
in Gelati and the episcopacy was not established. So 1529 year is
considered as the date of establishment of Gelati  Episcopacy Pulpit.
To form new eparchies was the main reform for the king of Imereti
Bagrat III. With it the king gained new allies in the struggle with
outward and internal enemies. Melkisedek Sakvarelidze was the first
bishop in Gelati.
The half part of Argveti and Okriba (Western territory from the river
rioni to Eastern one to the river Choloburi) was given to Gelaty
eparchy. Southern border of the eparchy was the river Kvirila, and
Northen one – the mountain ringe of Racha and Lechkhumi.

__________________________________________________________________

LADO MIRIANASHVILI
Fund of Science `Udabno~

MARTYRIUM OF UNKNOWN TYPE FOR RELICS OF DAVID-GAREJI DESERT MONKS
SLAUGHTERED ON EASTER NIGHT
(FOR ESTABLISHING AN ACTUAL FUNCTION OF A CONSTRUCTION KNOWN
AS THE CHURCH OF PROPHET ELIAH)

Summary

Martyrium of David-Gareji Desert Monks slaughtered on Easter night was
identified in the east end of `Udabno Monastery~ based on source study
analysis of a hagiographic work and several historical accounts. Prior
to our discovery, the church of Forty Martyrs in the west end of the
same monastery was considered to have been an ossuary for relics of
the Saint Martyrs immediately after their disinterment. The newly
discovered martyrium is a small size chapel. It lacks a doorway. The
chapel’s west wall was open at its entire width, the opening starting
at a height of 0.7 m from the floor level. Bones of the martyrs
probably covered the entire floor of the chapel. The martyrium of this
type earlier was unknown in Georgia.
According to the hagiographic work, which has assisted us in
localizing the martyrium, the latter was constructed on order of King
Aleksandre II (1574-1605). Therefore the martyrdom cannot be linked
with invasion of Shah Abbas I of Persia in 1615-16 as considered
earlier. Based on the analysis of Deeds and medieval graffiti, we
suggest the new date of martyrdom – 1603.

__________________________________________________________________

ELDAR BUBULASHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT GEORGIA HAS BEEN FALLEN TO
HOLY THEOTOKOS’S LOT
Summary
According to the ancient Georgian sources and the Church Tradition as
well as more recent foreign documents, Georgia is under special
protection of the mother of God since it has fallen to her lot to
preach there. Some documents, such as Leonti Mroveli’s version of the
story included in the `Chronicle of Kartli~, two redactions of the
life of St. Nino in Synaxarion (one is dated by 9th c. and another  –
14th) and the life of Holy Father Hilarion of Georgia (first half of
the 9th c.) are of a special interest regarding this subject.
Among foreign documents those from Greece and Russia are to be noted.
Stephen of Mount Athos is regarded an author of the Greek document. We
suppose that the source of the story that was found in his work about
Georgia being under special protection of Holy Theotokos, was the oral
tradition kept by Georgian monks of the Iveron Monastery on Mount
Athos. Russian clergymen also learned about the subject from the same
source. They regarded the work of Stephen of Mount Athos so important
that translated and then published it under the title of `Rai
Mislenni~ in 1659. Besides, special importance has been given to this
subject in Russian liturgical books as well. Scholars have come to an
agreement that not only `Iveria~ but `Moscow and its Northern country~
is also being under special protection of Holy Theotokos and her icon.
This was the reason why copies of the `Iveron Icon of Holy Theotokos~
from Georgia and Mount Athos were popular in Russia as well. Many
churches and monasteries were dedicated to them in Russia.
The main point of the presented work is that being under special
protection of Holy Theotokos does not render Georgia any kind of
superiority or privilege. Throughout the centuries Georgians were well
aware of their responsibility and have always been trying to be worth
of such protection by strengthening in faith and sacrificing
themselves for it.

__________________________________________________________________

NIKO JAVAKHISHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

FROM THE HISTORY OF MILITARY COLLABORATION OF THE GEORGIAN AND
NORTHERN CAUCASIAN NATIONS  (18TH C.)

Summary

       Military collaboration of the Georgians and Northern Caucasian
nations can be traced back to the ancient times.
       The Georgian kings realized the importance of maintenance and
promotion of close links with the Northern Caucasian people. They were
thought to be strong and faithful allies to support the brave Georgian
soldiers.
       The 18th century was marked by military collaboration between
the Georgians and Northern Caucasian nations, namely – Adigians
(Circassians and Kabar¬di¬ans), Vainakhs (Checenians and Ingushi),
Ossetians, Daghestanians, Nogai and Kalmiks.
       This military alliance did good job for the hegemony of
Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti (eastern Georgia) over the eastern
Transcaucasus.

__________________________________________________________________

ZURAB TSINTSADZE

STRIVE OF SAMTSKHE-JAVAKHETI  GEORGIANS  FOR IDENTITY IN  THE  PERIOD,
WHEN MESKHETI WAS INCORPORATED INTO TURKEY AND  RUSSIA.
Summary
After  incorporation  (16th-17th cc.) of  the south  Georgia
(Meskheti) into  Turkey, invaders  managed to Islamize  people  by
means of  repressions  and  economic levers. In spite of this, part of
the population selflessly protected Christianity and nationality.
Georgian clericals had been often punished for preaching Christianity
and maintaining the identity.
After annexation of Samtskhe-Javakheti by Russian Empire, the Russian
administration fought against Georgians and fulfilled the process of
assimilation of the Georgians in this region. A  certain  part of
Meskheti  residents  came against   this  event  and  began  to
fight  for  maintaining  their identity. In spite of  Turkish  and
Russian  occupation  of  Meskheti,  Samtskhe-Javakheti Georgians
never  stopped  fighting for  the  identity  that pointed  to  the
resuscitation  of Georgian  gene.

__________________________________________________________________

MZIA TKAVASHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

MIGRATION OF NORTHWESTERN CAUCASIANS TO TURKEY (1858-1865)
AND GRIGOL ORBELIANI
Summary
 After Russia had conquered Chechnya-Dagestan (1859),
annexation of the northwestern Caucasus remained the main task of the
empire. In order to finish the war and to keep the peace in the
Caucasus, Russian officials decided to resettle the Caucasians from
mountains to the plain and to settle Cossacks instead of them. Russian
administration of the Caucasus began to implement the plan. Due to
decrease in land, the local highlanders were forced to leave their
mother-land. They migrated to Turkey. This process is called
`Muhajiroba~ (1858-1865). It was going under way during the
governorship of Bariatinsky, who supported the process.  In 1861
Bariatinsky was summoned to Petersburg. General Grigol Orbeliani
temporarily substituted for Briatinski. It turned out that he was the
sole official who considered resettling of the Caucasians
unacceptable. He opposed to the executor of this policy, head of the
Kuban army, Evdokimov, though he knew well that the process was
managed by the Royal Court of Russia. Orbeliani guessed that he
couldn’t cease migration and attempted to slow down its rate. In order
to reach this purpose, he asserted that the process was to be
abandoned for maintaining good relations with Turkey. Orbeliani made
stress on possibility of loosing international authority by Russia as
well.
Grigol Orbeliani was against forced actions towards the Caucasians and
considered that Russia should grant them land and provide with normal
living conditions. Here we cite Orbeliani’s words about his views
concerning the Caucasians: `I am not the confessor, but the successor
concerned with people. I have only one way to assist the people – to
show mercy to them. Truth and justice are associated with the latter.~
Grigol Orbeliani took up the post till 1862. Since 1862 Prince Mikhail
Nikolozovich succeeded him. The process of immigration continued.
`Muhajiroba~ was a tragic phenomenon in the history of the Caucasian
nations: most of them died in the foreign land.

__________________________________________________________________

DODO CHUMBURIDZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

RUSSIAN DEMOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY AGAINST GEORGIA
IN THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES

Summary
 In the 19th and 20th centuries demographical policy of Russia towards
Georgia was aggressive as it undermined foundations of the country and
abrogated local tradition of cohabitation with representatives of
different nations: the native population was resettled and different
ethnic groups were compactly settled; tendencies towards separatism
were encouraged. The approach continues till now. Certain groups in
Russia have been planning and realizing anti-demographic projects
towards Georgia, that can be considered as an unfavorable factor for
rehabilitation and normal existence of the state.
        Great bulk of the Georgians died in military campaigns of Russia in
the East, in the World Wars 1 and 2, as well as during rebellions
against the regime established by Russia and political repressions.
This has resulted in great demographic loss that is especially
dangerous for a small nation like the Georgians, reducing their
ability for regeneration. Analysis of historical events reveals that
the demographical policy of Russia was rigid towards Georgia.  The
`Committee of Immigrated Peoples~ was founded to guide the process of
resettling people of different ethnic origin and religion into
Georgia. The state granted economical assistance to the resettled
people, with no attention to the Georgian peasants, who lacked the
plough-land.
        Demographic policy of the Soviet Union was malevolent towards Georgia
as well. Russia used to encour¬age and still encourages actions of
separatist regimes against independent Georgia, tries to abrogate its
territorial integrity, to carry out new annexation of the country. The
Georgian people, who have undergone two-century aggression from
Russia, strive to become a member of international organizations, with
the purpose of resolving existing conflicts peacefully.

__________________________________________________________________

GELA SAITIDZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

A SIGNIFICANT ARCHIVE DOCUMENT
(SPEECH OF EVGENI GEGECHKORI AT THE THIRD STATE COUNSIL SESSION
ON 12 MARCH, 1912)

Summary

Evgeni Gegechkori (1881-1954) was one of the leaders of the Social
Democratic party (of Mensheviks) in Georgia and Transcaucasus.
Following the overthrow of the tsarist government, he occupied
important positions: Chairman of Transcaucasian Comissariat and
Foreign Minister of Georgia; political immigrant since 1921.
In 1907 Gegechkori was elected to the Third State Counsil from
Kutaisi. In the Counsil, as a representative of the opposition
Fraction, he was actively involved in activities for improving
legislation.
Of special significante was his speech concerning the Holy Synod
issue. The speech has not lost its topicality till now. Complete
Georgian translation of E.Gegechkori’s above speech is presented.

__________________________________________________________________

SHORENA MURUSIDZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

LEGATION OF THE GEORGIAN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN PARIS
Summary
The paper deals with the activity of Embassy of Georgian Democratic
Republic Government in Europe. On February 25th, 1921 the Government
of France accredited the embassy of actually non-existing independent
state. Akaki Chkhenkeli was appointed as plenipotentiary.
The Embassy directed its diplomatic activity in the other European
countries. The aim of the legation was to assist in restoring
independence of Georgia. The Embassy had to deliver the notes of
protest and memoranda to the governments of European countries.
Georgian legation performed the function of a consulate as well.
Important task of its activity was to introduce Georgia and to
disseminate information about its existence. Unfortunately, the
international situation of that time turned to be unfavourable for the
activity of the National Government legation. France was the only
country defending the interests of Georgia at international meetings.
But her attitude towards the Embassy of Georgia soon changed. In 1933
the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and France was
signed. In the second half of the same year the legation of Georgia
was abolished.

__________________________________________________________________

AVTANDIL SONGULASHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

GEORGIAN IMMIGRATION AND REPATRIATION IN THE 1940S-1950S
Summary
Repatriation process of the Georgian immigrants, who had left their
native land in different times, intensified after the World War 2 was
finished.
In August 1947 a group of 32 Georgians living in Europe returned back
to Georgia. The same year, many Georgian families returned back from
France. It is worth to be noted that in 1948 some one thousand
Georgians lived in France, mainly in Paris. Association of the
Georgian immigrants `Saqartvelos Patriotebi~ (The Patriots of Georgia)
carried out its activities in the same city. It was publishing a
magazine `Qartuli Saqme~ (Georgian Affairs).
Georgian immigrants from China got involved in the repatriation
processes. In 1948 they arrived in Tbilisi and asked the government of
Georgia to grant them the citizenship.
Georgia established relations with Iran to promote contacts with the
Georgians living in Fereidan, who intended to resettle in Georgia.
Government of the Soviet Union in Moscow put up barriers to block the
above process.

__________________________________________________________________
SHOTA VADACHKORIA
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

ZVIAD GAMSAKHURDIA’S PRESIDENTIAL  PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN THE LIGHT
OF THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL THINKING
Summary
The period of the so-called `triumvirate~ and Eduard Shevardnadze’a
reign, who have forcibly seized power in Georgia in December 1991-
January 1992, is studied in the paper. It is shown, that the main goal
of the `triumvirate~ was to bring discredit upon Zviad Gamsakhurdia.
Based on archive materials and other documents from the period under
consideration, the author has arrived to the conclusion that
propaganda against Zviad Gamsakhurdia was regular and purposeful,
intending to conceal own criminal deeds from the international
community, and to justify the bloody coup d’état in Georgia during the
turn of 1991 to 1992.

__________________________________________________________________

LELA SARALIDZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

GEORGIA’S EUROPEAN ORIENTATION AT THE PRESENT-DAY STAGE
Summary
It is underlined in this work that Georgia’s relationship with
European countries has a history of many centuries. Georgian officials
always tried to establish trade, economic and political relations with
European countries, to receive assistance exactly from European
countries, in order to defend Georgia from constant invasions of
Persia and Turkey. In its part, Europe was always interested in
Georgia’s geopolitics.
In March 1994 after the agreement of Georgia-NATO’s `Partnership for
Peace~ and in April 1995 after signing the agreement on partnership
and collaboration with European union, Georgia is progressing towards
integration with European Union. This is one of the main destinations
of Georgia’s foreign policy. The paper mentions one of the theorists
of the modern European integration process, Georgian professor Mikheil
Muskhelishvili (Muskheli) (1903-1964). In 1948-1964 he was a professor
of juridical and political scientific faculty in Strasburg; since 1954
–founder and general secretary of University Association of Europe. He
was the first Georgian scientist who has proposed and substantiated
the idea about unification of Europe, its federative structuring, and
the necessity of defending human rights. Mikheil Muskhelishvili is
buried in Strasburg.
In April 1999 Georgia became a member of the European Council, after
which it joined the convention defending the human rights and
fundamental freedom and acknowledged the compulsory jurisdiction of
Strasburg’s court. Citizens of Georgia were given an opportunity to
use the most effective mechanism defending human rights. Georgia has
signed both the Convention and its Protocols, with the exception of
Protocol 1. Georgian parliament ratified the latter in December 2001.
Convention defending human rights is fundamental European contract
which was received by European council in November 4, 1950 and became
valid by eight countries after its ratification on September 3, 1953.
25 years later, in 1975, almost all member countries of European
council joined the convention. By entering in European council Georgia
took obligation to join and to ratify the main acts and agreements of
European Council in the course of a year, including the convention
defending human rights, on which the system of the whole European law
is based.
Georgia seeks integration with European Union. As the ambassador of
European Council in Georgia and Armenia Per Eklund has declared, the
good-neighbor policy of Europe may influence positively settling of
conflicts in Georgia. The role of European Council at this stage is
kept within the bounds of bilateral meetings. It finances meetings of
the representatives of Georgian, Ossetian and Abkhazian societies.
European Council has its representative in the South Caucasus, who is
ready to take part in solving conflicts peacefully. European
parliament with special resolution appeals to European Council and
European Commission to carry in the question of frozen conflicts and
their solving in the order of the day of next summits between Euro
union and Russia.
Europe has its values. European Union is based on functional market
economy, democratic values and in case of successful solving; Georgia
will be given historical chance to become the member country of
European Union. Benevolence of each European country is also very
important for Georgia.

__________________________________________________________________

LIANA BERIASHVILI, GIROGI GOTSIRIDZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

SOME ASPECTS OF TRADITIONAL HOUSEHOLD CULTURE OF THE POPULATION OF
KVEMO (LOWER) KARTLI
(GARDABANI REGION)
Summary
        Gardabani has been a permanent toponym of the historical province in
the south-east part of Georgia – Kvemo Kartli, which maintained
considerable strategic importance both in the past, and present. It
was a border zone with Azerbaijan and Armenia.
        According to written sources, the ancient `Gardabani~, `Khunani~
first belonged to legendary hero Gardabas, afterwards (approximately
from the 15th century) it fell into the possessions of the noble
family of the Baratashvilis. Since than the territory acquired the
name of `Sabaratiano~.
        Due to composition of its population, Gardabani region stands out by
its wide poly-ethnicity. Ever since the Middle Ages, especially since
the second half of the 16th century, apart from the Georgians there
already lived Azeris, Aisors, Greeks, Armenians and representatives of
other ethnic groups.
        On the basis of ethnographic data it is established that during many
centuries there did not occur essential changes in the sphere of
economic and household culture of this region. The traditional
Georgian system of agriculture (field husbandry, wine growing and
winemaking), and cattle breeding has been kept. Alongside with
agriculture, cattle-breeding was developed. The nomad tribes (`Karayaz
tribes~), who came here from elsewhere, successfully used pastures of
`Tsalka uplands~. They implementing forms of nomadic cattle breeding,
characteristic of them (e.g. sheep breeding).
        According to administrative division, Gardabani region today consists
of three parts:
1.      Upper – Foothill, the so-called `Limitropic~ zone, which is
adjacent to the borders of Kakheti and Kartli. Villages Norio,
Martkopi, Satskhenisi, where basically Georgians live, and where
traces of a historical multiple internal migration are precisely
observed, and unique monuments of architecture, material and spiritual
culture are kept.
2.      Internal – Across the Mari channel with mixed ethnic structure of
the population.
3.      Front – Vicinities of Tbilisi; villages Tsavkisi, Shindisi,
Tabakhmela, Kojori. Each of them has its well-shaped micro-landscape
and ethnographic structure.
        In the present article the basic questions of cultural and community
life of Gardabani region are summarized, and results of retrospective
analysis during the period starting from the second half of the 19th
c. and till the end of the 20th c. are given.

__________________________________________________________________

NINO MINDADZE
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

TRADITIONAL GEORGIAN FOLK VIEW ABOUT A MAN
(BODY AND SOUL)
Summary
According to the Georgian folk view, living man is the unity of spirit
and flesh/body.
Flesh/body is material, visible, touchable and mortal, while the soul
is nonmaterial, invisible, non-touchable and immortal.
        In people’s opinion, human body is made of earth. Alongside with the
Biblical tradition, such viewpoint is conditioned by ancient mythology
about creation of man from earth.
        Alongside with it, Georgian folk cognition reflects the knowledge
about four elements of the world (earth, water, air, fire) as the
components of a human being body.
        Ancient ideas that a man has several souls, including a person’s
double soul, are evidenced in Georgia. When such a soul comes to be in
the other world, it acquires a human body again. It grows like a
living man: it is in need of food, cloths, etc.
        The folk view reflects also the trace of Christian comprehension of
soul. Namely, it accepts existence of a cognitive, as well as of the
living/vital soul, which is associated with breathing.
        Thus, the Georgian folk view about human being reflects pre-Christian
as well as Christian and medieval official medical knowledge about
creation of man, about his flesh and soul.

__________________________________________________________________

VLADIMER ASLANISHVILI
Ivane Javakhishvili Institute
of History and Ethnology

ANTHROPOLOGICAL POPULATION IN KVEMO (LOWER) KARTLI
(4TH MILLENNIUM B. C. – 18TH CENTURY A. D.)

Summary

Anthropological data from Eneolitic-Late Medieval times, found in
Kvemo Kartli – 302 cranias:145 males +123 females + 34 children – was
analyzed. It is possible to sum up the results: there are four racial
types – South Caucasian, Euro, Afro and Asian. Three forms of doliho,
meso and brachicranian, with sub-variations, three types of skulls
graceful, usual normal and massive and many other forms of faces.
Five anthropological type combinations are distinguished: South
Caucasian (SCPal., PG, Geo, Geoeuro); Front Assian (FAss and FAss
Pal); Euro (Euro and EuroAfro); Afro (Afro, APal and Aass); Assian
( Americanoid, East Assian, E. AssPal,  E. AssAfro, Baycal, FarEast).
Only one anthropological type, South Caucasian/Kazrtveluri (SCGeo),
lived in Eneolitic period.
At an early stage of Kuro-Araxes Culture (first half of the fourth
millennium), the territory was settled by SCGeo aboriginals,
biologically closely related with anthropological types from outside.
The present anthropological types are closely linked with old and most
ancient anthropological types.
Conformity of historical, archaeological and anthropological processes
is evident.

Advertisements

January 28, 2009 Posted by | 9.PROCEEDINGS | 1 Comment

Memorandums

Memorandum:

1. The Memorandum of Mutual Understanding was signed between the Ministry of Defense of Georgia and LEPL Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology on November 26, 2007. The agreement stands for the rise of military-patriotic and national self-consciousness among the servicemen, students  and attendants of the Arm Forces of Georgia, contributing to the advancement of the educational process within the system in general. According to the signed memorandum the Institute will prepare an educational series of “Library of Soldier,” compiling popular scientific works from the field of History of Georgia, Military and Naval History of Georgia, Distinguished Military Leaders and of other historical events. The maps of various battles and special lecture courses will be also provided.

2. The Memorandum of Mutual Cooperation was signed between the LEPL Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology and Iv.Javakishvili Tbilisi State University on February 5, 2008, supporting open lectures of co-workers of Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology at Iv.Javakishvili Tbilisi State University, as well as at its partner universities. The memorandum looks for assisting BA, MA and Ph.D. level students with the scientific base of the Institute (library, supervising) as well as promoting joint research and scientific projects.

3. The Memorandum of Mutual Cooperation was signed between the LEPL Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology and A.Tsereteili Kutaisi State University on February 25, 2008, supporting open lectures of co-workers of Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology at Iv.Javakishvili Tbilisi State University, as well as at its partner universities. The memorandum looks for assisting BA, MA and Ph.D. level students with the scientific base of the Institute (library, supervising) as well as promoting joint research and scientific projects.

4. The Agreement of Mutual Cooperation was signed between the LEPL Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology and I.Gogebashvili Telavi State University on May 5, 2008, considering collaboration within the framework of joint conferences and scientific-research activities, as well as contributing to the popularization of scientific papers of co-workers of the Institute and University.

5. In July, 2008 memorandum of collaboration was signed between LEPL Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology and University of Georgia for 5 years, considering:

  • Opening the library and archival funds of the Institute for BA, MA and Ph.D. level students of the School of Humanities, University of Georgia.
  • Participation of the Institute in the scientific and research activities of the School of Humanities, University of Georgia.
  • Elaborating joint academic programs. Collaborating for advancement and improvement of BA, MA and Ph.D. programs.
  • Internship of BA and MA students with highest academic records in the institute.
  • Organizing joint conferences and presentation-discussions of books.

 

6. On November, 13, 2008 memorandum of scientific collaboration was signed between LEPL Iv.Javakishvili Institute of History and Ethnology and Institute of History, Moldavian Academy of Sciences for 5 years, considering joint scientific, scientific-research and educational projects. Preparing new generation of young scientists. The main fields of collaboration include, but are not restricted to:

  • Conducting joint researches in common fields of interests;
  • Internship and exchange of specialists for delivering lectures and professional advancement;
  • Supervising of Ph.D., and MA degree students;
  • Preparing scientists and teachers, ensuring advancement and improvements of their qualification;
  • Joint publishing and educational projects;
  • Exchange of scientific and scientific-methodological literature;
  • Exchange of publications in scientific editions.

January 25, 2009 Posted by | 1.4 Memorandums | Leave a comment

Structure of the Institute of History

DirectorVazha Kiknadze, Dr., Historical Sciences, Professor.

Vice-DirectorTeimuraz Jojua

Vice-Director in International RelationsDavit Matsaberidze

Administration   6 co-workers

  • Chancellor – Nino Gigani
  • Monitor – Nodar Babutsidze
  • Accountant – Nina Ugulava
  • Assistant of Accountant – Irma Devdariani
  • Lawyer – Irakli Gulbatashvili
  • Web-Site Administrator – Malkhaz (Mamuka) Dumbadze

Department:

  • Department of Ancient History 6 co-workers

Head of Department/ Main Scientific Researcher – Irine Tatishvili, Dr.Historical Sciences, Professor

  • Main Scientific Researcher – Giorgi Khavtaradze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Manana Khidasheli
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Manana Khvedelidze
  • Scientific Researcher – Nino Charekhishvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Nana Bakhsoliani
  • Department of History of Medieval Georgia and Source Study – 13 co-workers

Head of Department/ Main Scientific Researcher – Mariam Chkhartishvili, Dr.Historical Sciences,                         Professor

  • Main Scientific Researcher – Vakhtang Goiladze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Giorgi Anchabadze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Tamaz Beradze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Eka Kvachantiradze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Lela Pataridze
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Alexandre Tvaradz
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Marine Qadagidze
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Davit Merkviladze
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Medea Gogoladze
  • Scientific Researcher – Rusudan Labadze
  • Scientific Researcher – Papuna Gabisonia
  • Scientific Researcher – Giorgi Cheishvili
  • Department of Modern and Contemporary History – 14 co-workers

Head of Department/ Main Scientific Researcher – Avtandil Songulashvili, Dr.Historical Sciences, Professor

  • Main Scientific Researcher – Dodo Chumburidze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Eldar Bubulashvili
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Giorgi Saitidze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Nikoloz Javakishvili
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Lela Miqiashvili
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Gia Gelashvili
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Shota Vadachkoria
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Lola Saralidze
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Khatuna Khokhrashvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Mzia Tkavashvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Tsatsa Chkartishvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Irine Arabidze
  • Scientific Researcher – Shorena Murusidze

 

  • Department of Ethnology of Georgia – 11 co-workers

Head of Department/ Main Scientific Researcher – Ketevan Khutsishvili, Dr.Historical Sciences, Professor

  • Main Scientific Researcher – Nino Abakelia
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Nino Mindadze
  • Main Scientific Researcher – Giorgi Gotsiridze
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Khatuna Ioseliani
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Rozeta Gujejiani
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Nino Gambashidze
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Nino Chirgadze
  • Scientific Researcher – Lela Nebieridze
  • Scientific Researcher – Ketevan Alaverdashvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Tea Khamushadze

 

  • Department of Ethnology of Caucasus – 7 co-workers

 

Head of Department/ Scientific Researcher – Roland Topchishvili, Dr.Historical Sciences, Professor

  • Scientific Researcher – Salome Bakhia-Oqruashvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Lavrenti Janiashvili
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Natia Jalabadze
  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Irma Kvashilava
  • Scientific Researcher – Joni Kvitsiani
  • Scientific Researcher – Malkhaz Toria
    • Laboratory of Anthropological Researches – 4 co-workers

Head of Laboratory/Senior Scientific Researcher – Liana Bitadze, Ph.D. of Biological Sciences, Dr. of Historical Sciences

  • Senior Scientific Researcher – Vladimer Aslanishvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Shorena Laliashvili
  • Scientific Researcher – Davit Chitanava

       Library – 4 co-workers

Head of Library – Shalva Gloveli, Dr. of Historical Sciences

Chief Bibliographer – Mariam Elizbarashvili

Senior Bibliographer – Maia Merebashvili

Operator – Mariam Butikashvili 

      Reading Hall – 2 co-workers 

Librarian – Leila Khurtsia

Librarian – Natia Abashidze 

     Historical and Ethological Archival Fund – 3 co-workers;  

Responsible Person – Nikoloz Gurgenidze

Archivarius – Sopio Andguladze

Operator – Ana Ruadze

     Technical Staff – 5 co-workers

  • Cleaning/Maintenance – Mzeqala Khanashvili
  • Cleaning/Maintenance – Luiza Khizanishvili
  • Guard – Zurab Babutsidze
  • Guard – Givi Babutsidze
  • Guard – Mikheil Khavtaradze

January 14, 2009 Posted by | Structure | Comments Off on Structure of the Institute of History

Sceintific Council

Scientific Council

(Elected on July 23, 2007)

Chairman of Council – Tamaz Beradze – Dr. of Historical Sciences, Professor, Main Scientific Researcher at the Department of History of Medieval Georgia and Source Study.  

Vice-Chairman of Council – Avtandil Songulashvili – Dr. of Historical Sciences, Professor, Main Scientific Researcher at the Department of Modern and Contemporary History. 

Members of Council:

   

 

    Mariam Chkhartishvili Dr. of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of Department of History of Medieval Georgia and Source Study, Main Scientific Researcher 

 

    Manana Khidasheli Dr. of Historical Sciences, Main Scientific Researcher, Department of Ancient                                                                                                                        History 

 

    Giorgi Saitidze Dr.Historical Sciences, Professor, Main Scientific Researcher, Department of Modern and Contemporary Histor 

 

    Nino Mindadze Dr. of Historical Sciences, Main Scientific Researcher, Department of Ethnology of Georgi 

 

    Khatuna Ioseliani Ph. D. Historical Sciences, Senior Scientific Research, Department of Ethnology of Georgi 

 

    Secretary of Council Lola Saralidze – Ph. D. Historical Sciences, Senior Scientific Research , Department of Modern and Contemporary History.  

January 14, 2009 Posted by | Sceintific Council | Leave a comment

Department

Department of History of Old Countries

Head of Department/Senior Research Fellow- Irine Tatishvili
Senior Research Fellow- Giorgi Qavtaradze
Senior Research Fellow- Manana Khidasheli
Senior Research Fellow- Manan Khvedelidze
Research Fellow – Nino Chareqashvili
Research Fellow – Nana Bakhsoliani

Department of History of Middle Ages Georgia

Head of Department/Senior Research Fellow- Mariam Chkhartishvili
Senior Research Fellow- Giorgi Anchabadze
Senior Research Fellow – Tamaz Beradze
Senior Research Fellow – Vakhtang Goiladze
Senior Research Fellow – Eka Kvachantiradze
Leading Research Fellow – Medea Gogoladze
Leading Research Fellow – Alexandre Tvaradze
Leading Research Fellow – Davit Merkviladze
Leading Research Fellow – Marine Qadagidze
Research Fellow – Rusudan Labadze
Research Fellow – Giorgi Cheishvili
Research Fellow – Papuna Gabisonia

Department of Modern History

Head of Department/Senior Research Fellow- Avtandil Songulashvili
Senior Research Fellow- Eldar Bubulashvili
Senior Research Fellow- Giorgi Saitidze
Senior Research Fellow- Dodo Chumburidze
Senior Research Fellow-Nikoloz Javakishvili
Senior Research Fellow-Lela Miqiashvili
Senior Research Fellow – Gia Gelashvili
Senior Research Fellow – Shota Vadachkoria
Senior Research Fellow – Lola Saralidze
Senior Research Fellow – Katuna Khokhrashvili
Research Fellow – Irine Arabidze
Research Fellow – Shorena Murusidze
Research Fellow – Mzia Tkavashvili
Research Fellow – Tsatsa Chkhartishvili

Department of Ethnography of Georgia

Head of Department/Senior Research Fellow- Ketevan Kutsishvili
Senior Research Fellow- Nino Abakelia
Senior Research Fellow – Giorgi Gotsiridze
Senior Research Fellow – Nino Mindadze
Senior Research Fellow – Rozeta Gujejiani
Senior Research Fellow – Katuna Ioseliani
Senior Research Fellow – Nino Gambashidze
Senior Research Fellow – Nino Chirgadze
Research Fellow – Lela Nebieridze
Research Fellow – Tea Kamushadze
Research Fellow – Ketevan Alaverdashvili

Department of Ethnology of Caucasus

Head of Department/Senior Research Fellow- Roland Topchishvili
Senior Research Fellow- Salome Bakhia-Oqruashvili
Senior Research Fellow- Lavrenti Janiashvili
Leading Research Fellow – Irma Kvashilava
Leading Research Fellow – Natia Jalabadze
Research Fellow – Malkhaz Toria
Research Fellow – Joni Kvitsiani

Laboratory of Anthropological Researches\

Head of Laboratory/Senior Research Fellow- Liana Bitadze
Senior Research Fellow – Vladimer Aslanishvili
Research Fellow – Shorena Laliashvili
Research Fellow – Davit Chitanava

January 14, 2009 Posted by | Department | Leave a comment

administration

Director – Vazha Kiknadze, Dr., Historical Sciences, Professor.
Vice-Director – Teimuraz Jojua
Vice-Director in International Relations – Davit Matsaberidze
Chancellor – Nino Gigani
Monitor – Nodar Babutsidze
Accountant – Nina Ugulava
Assistant of Accountant – Irma Devdariani
Lawyer – Irakli Gulbatashvili
Web-Site Administrator – Malkhaz (Mamuka) Dumbadze

January 14, 2009 Posted by | Administration | Leave a comment