DOCSLIB.ORG

HUMINO CONGRESS-Online International Conference the RELATIONSHIP of LEVAN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HUMINO CONGRESS-Online International Conference the RELATIONSHIP of LEVAN HUMINO CONGRESS-Online International Conference Hosted from Paris, France https://conferencious.com August 21st -22nd ,2021 THE RELATIONSHIP OF LEVAN - THE KING OF KAKHETI TOWARDS THE POPULATION IN THE MOUNTAINS OF KAKHETI Associate Professor Madona Kebadze Iakob Gogebashvili, Telavi State University, Mzia Maisuradze, Doctor of History, Mentor Teacher of History at LEPL Telavi N:5 Public School Eka Kobiashvili, Doctor of History, Teacher of History and Civic Education at LEPL Telavi N:6 Public School Nestani Kazarashvili, II course in modern and recent history (Master's degree) One of the important issues of the internal policy of kinf Levan is his relationship with the population in the mountains of Kakheti. The relationship between the mountains and the valley was peculiar agricultural economical relationship. As it is known the main field of agriculture is cattle-breeding. In the summer mountains are very good place for the cattle, but if in the winter mountaineers don’t drive their cattle flock down to the valley they won’t be able to feed them. Besides the main consumers of the cattle products is the population in the valley. Mountaineers find every necessary goods that they can’t get them in the mounatins. The relationship between the mountains and the valley is significant in another way. Mountains can only room certain number of population. Increase number of population move down to the valley. We would like to mention Levani’s relationship with the Tush people. We meet the idications about Tusheti in Georgian historiography only from the second half of the XV century. We have very little information about Tusheti in the XV-XVI centuries. In the historical sources, Tush people actively appear after separating Kakheti as an independent kingdom. Mainly, they stood against those actions that Giorgi VIII had started. The kings of Kartli and Kakheti provided geographical location of Tusheti, valued its special devotion that was revelaed in the relation of royal family towards Tush people: the reason and aim that kings treated well to Tush people were political and economical [1, 340] .The Tush people guarded Kakheti from the North and protected it from the invasion of nomadic tribes. Political importance of Tusheti for the kingdoms of Krtli and Kakheti increased grately from XVI- XVII centuries. Tusheti has got such geographical location that it was wonderful strategical point thos days: Tusheti stood against Lezgians in the Eatern side and Chechens in the North while invasion. Gerogia couldn’t find better guards here than Tush people those days.Kist –Lezgians knew The Tush people and on The Tush people knew Kists and Lezghians. [1, 341] Besides political value Tusheti had economical importance for Georgia as well. Georgian kings tried to create conditions for Tusheti’s progress. With official deeds and charters, kings of Kartli and Kakheti ascertained The Tush people Kakhetian valleys and fields as grasslands (we mean the charter issued on February 7, 1757 by Teimuraz II and Erekle II), mainly, big valley of Alvani, gorges of Pankisi and Lopota. As it is seen Georgian kings implemented such activities form the XVI century. [1, 341; 29, 573] After the implemented reforms I Kakheti kingdom, the mountaineers of Kakheti rose against the government. From the II half of the XV century, Tush-Pshav-Kkevsurians who existed independently were reconciled by king Levan not with the force of arms but with the power of agreement. About this fact, Vakhushti writes the following: “ not long ago Tush-Pshav-Khevsurians didn’t obey the kings of Kakheti, king Levan conquered them not with the force, but promised them to let their sheep graze safely in Kakheti and sacrificed to the cross of Lashari in Tianeti and henceforth they would give certain rates”. [2, 573] Since dividing Kakheti kingdom as provinces ruled by mouravi (state official) and until Georgia joined Russia, Tusheti is always connected to central government as mouravi province. In XV-XVIII Page | 7 HUMINO CONGRESS-Online International Conference Hosted from Paris, France https://conferencious.com August 21st -22nd ,2021 centuries, Tusheti is seen as separate mouravi province and sometimes is consolidated with Pshav- Khevsureti and Kakhetian highlands refpresent one mouravi province. [1, 88] During XVI-XVIII centuries, the highest official who connected Tusheti and the central government was called mouravi (estate manager) and was mainly considered as militaryofficial. His duty was to take military army out of the mountain and take part in certain battles. He had to take care about the safety of Tusheti region. If the danger exceeded the opportunities of Tusheti, he had to tell it to the kingdom and ask for help. Mouravi had strick regulations to act in the mountains. He didn’t have right to interfare the internal cases of the mountaineers. The latter ones also couldn’t go to the battle field without informing and agreeing with the mouravi. If there was serious disagreement between mouravi and mountaineers, kingdom would interfare in this case and they would discuss the problems with the king. In connection to this issue, V.Elanidze gives certain examples. [1, 101-102] ”king would personally interfare in the life of mountaineers; he would do the same when there was serious disagreement between the Tush people of the mountain’s tribe- says V.Elanidze. Tush edition has kept one good example about interfaring kingdom in mountaineers’ problems.The case refers to the argument between Tsova and Tush about summer grassland. This case was so complicated that they didn’t mercy each other even from death.The fact that this case was real, can be concluded from the fact that the two communities of Tusheti – Tsova and Gometsreli had disagreements about grasslands even in the XIX century”. [1, 103]. There was disagreement between Tush and Pshaveli people. For example, there exists the charter by Erekle II, dated by May, 9, 1787. King Erekle orders the mouravi of Tusheti the following: Our order is that Kaliskureli and Magraani people wanted to plough in Alvani ad Tush people didn’t allow them to do it. Why shouldn’t they let to plough? The cheaper the bread is the more beneficial it is for Tush people.Nobody contends for the land and why don’t you let them plough? We ask you, the mouravi of Tusheti to prohibit everyone who refuses to plough and let people do it. May. [3] We have already mentioned that after shifting regional districts (saeristao) into samouravo (province governing by mouravi), Tush-Pshav-Khevsurians correctly noticed anticipated danger, separated from the kingdom and hoisted the flag of independence. Those separetd mountaineers were reconciled not by the weapons but with the help of compromising. “ not long ago Tush-Pshav-Khevsurians didn’t obey the kings of Kakheti, king Levan conquered them not with the force, but promised them to let their sheep graze safely in Kakheti and sacrificed to the cross of Lashari in Tianeti and henceforth they would give certain rates” .[2, 573] Winter grasslands had great importance for Shepherd Tush people, such as Aloni valley (Alvani valley) and Tush people had to have friendly relationship with the Kakheti government. Kakhetian kings also tried to unite brave Tushetins for receiving taxes. It’s worth noting that Tushetians still remember this historical fact. You frequently hear from them that King Levan presented Alvani Valley to Tush people. [86, 25] We should also mention that besides Tushetian taxes and campaigning. Tusheti had special political- strategic importance during our research period and in the following centuries as well. The charter dated by February 7, 1757 should be the response to this. It was issued by Teimuraz II and Erekle II. According to this charter, it is proved that the estate Aloni had been presented to Tush people during Teimuraz II forefathers and now the kings of Kartli and Kakheti were corroborating the same territory to Tusheti again. After the deeds investigated by us, it is proved that, the talk is about the usage of grasslands. The author remarks quite rightly that in the deeds issued by Georgian kings in 1757 and 1781, which proves the possession of Alvani, Pankisi and Lopota estates to Tush people, the general attention is paid on creating favourable conditions for Tushetian’s sheep-breeding. The mentioned places are provided for grazing and living. We consider that even Tush people would support such policy of the kings as they needed Kakhetian valley for grasslands only and not for living.During those days, Kartl-Kakheti kingdom would’t support Tush people to abandon old places as they protected srategical roads joining Kakheti and purposely locked Page | 8 HUMINO CONGRESS-Online International Conference Hosted from Paris, France https://conferencious.com August 21st -22nd ,2021 up paths coming from the North Caucasus towards Georgia. It should be provided that there was complicated situation between Georgian mountain and the valley in the XVIII century for constant attacks by neigbouring mountaineers. In this situation, the population in the valley suffered more than mountaineers, as because of its geographical peculiarities, mountain had better chances to protect itself. Besides, North Caucasin mountaineers mainly robbed rich valleys.[1, 358-359] Tush people guarded Kakheti from the North and protected it from invasions of nomadic tribes. Political value of Tusheti for Kakheti and Kartl-Kakheti kingdoms grately increased in XVI-XVII centuries but besides political value, Tusheti had economical importance for Georgia as well.Georgian kings tried to create chances of progress for Tusheti in this direction. Kings of Kakheti and Kartl-Kakheti (Levan, Teimuraz II, Erekle II) confirmed Kakhetian valleys to Tusheti for grazing with official deed-charters, mainly it was big valley of Aloni, Pankisi and Lopota gorges [6].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Medicinal Ethnobotany of Wild Plants
    Kazancı et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2020) 16:71 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00415-y RESEARCH Open Access Medicinal ethnobotany of wild plants: a cross-cultural comparison around Georgia- Turkey border, the Western Lesser Caucasus Ceren Kazancı1* , Soner Oruç2 and Marine Mosulishvili1 Abstract Background: The Mountains of the Western Lesser Caucasus with its rich plant diversity, multicultural and multilingual nature host diverse ethnobotanical knowledge related to medicinal plants. However, cross-cultural medicinal ethnobotany and patterns of plant knowledge have not yet been investigated in the region. Doing so could highlight the salient medicinal plant species and show the variations between communities. This study aimed to determine and discuss the similarities and differences of medicinal ethnobotany among people living in highland pastures on both sides of the Georgia-Turkey border. Methods: During the 2017 and 2018 summer transhumance period, 119 participants (74 in Turkey, 45 in Georgia) were interviewed with semi-structured questions. The data was structured in use-reports (URs) following the ICPC classification. Cultural Importance (CI) Index, informant consensus factor (FIC), shared/separate species-use combinations, as well as literature data were used for comparing medicinal ethnobotany of the communities. Results: One thousand five hundred six UR for 152 native wild plant species were documented. More than half of the species are in common on both sides of the border. Out of 817 species-use combinations, only 9% of the use incidences are shared between communities across the border. Around 66% of these reports had not been previously mentioned specifically in the compared literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Tusheti
    Connecting Tusheti The Impact of Community Networking in Europe’s Highest Settlements Connecting This report was prepared by Nino Nanitashvili (independent consultant) and edited by Mike Jensen (Association for Progressive Communications) on behalf of Internet Society. It was made possible through the advisory and logistical support of Maarit Palovirta and Jane Coffin (Internet Society); Irakli(Rati) Kochlamazashvili, Natia Gogotidze and Zurab Babulaidze (Tusheti Development Fund); Ucha Seturi (Small and Medium Telecom Operators Association of Georgia (TOA)), and Nicola Bidwell (Association for Progressive Communications). The photos included in the report were taken by Jake Borden in Tusheti, during August 2018. © Internet Society | Jake Borden Photography Connecting Tusheti The Impact of Community Networking in Europe’s Highest Settlements Dec 2 2018 Connecting Tusheti Introduction Tusheti is one of the highest and most isolated settlements in Europe — an ecologically unspoiled community of historical and cultural significance in the Greater Caucasus Mountains of Georgia. The area’s sparse population and rugged topography has meant that it has been left unconnected by commercial operators for both Internet and often mobile voice services. To help address the isolation of the area, an independent locally operated wireless Internet service was set up in August 2017 with in-kind support from members of the community, the Georgian Telecom Operators Association, the ISOC Georgia Chapter and other local stakeholders as well as financial support from Internet Society (ISOC). A year later, the Internet service continues to operate and has already provided a variety of benefits to Tusheti’s residents and visitors, particularly in the hospitality sector. These and other impacts and outcomes are described below in more detail in this status report which examines how access to the Internet in remote and rural areas such as Tusheti can help to foster social and economic development.
    [Show full text]
  • National Report on the State of the Environment of Georgia
    National Report on the State of the Environment of Georgia 2007 - 2009 FOREWORD This National Report on the State of Environment 2007-2009 has been developed in accordance with the Article 14 of the Law of Georgia on Environmental Protection and the Presidential Decree N 389 of 25 June 1999 on the Rules of Development of National Report on the State of Environment. According to the Georgian legislation, for the purpose of public information the National Report on the State of Environment shall be developed once every three years. 2007-2009 National Report was approved on 9 December 2011. National Report is a summarizing document of all existing information on the state of the environment of Georgia complexly analyzing the state of the environment of Georgia for 2007-2009. The document describes the main directions of environmental policy of the country, presents information on the qualita- tive state of the environment, also presents information on the outcomes of the environmental activities carried out within the frames of international relations, and gives the analysis of environmental impact of different economic sectors. National Report is comprised of 8 Parts and 21 chapters: • Qualitative state of environment (atmospheric air, water resources, land resources, natural disasters, biodiversity, wastes and chemicals, ionizing radiation), • Environmental impact of different economic sectors (agriculture, forestry, transport, industry and en- ergy sector), • Environmental protection management (environmental policy and planning, environmental regula- tion and monitoring, environmental education and awareness raising). In the development of the present State of Environment (SOE) the Ministry of Environment Protection was assisted by the EU funded Project Support to the Improvement of the Environmental Governance in Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Historical and Political Geography
    World Regional Geography Book Series Series Editor E.F.J. de Mulder Haarlem, The Netherlands What does Finland mean to a Fin, Sichuan to a Shichuanian, and California to a Californian? How are physical and human geographical factors reflected in their present-day inhabitants? And how are these factors interrelated? How does history, culture, socio-economy, language and demography impact and characterize and identify an average person in such regions today? How does that determine her or his well-being, behaviour, ambitions and perspectives for the future? These are the type of questions that are central to The World Regional Geography Book Series, where physically and socially coherent regions are being characterized by their roots and future perspectives described through a wide variety of scientific disciplines. The Book Series presents a dynamic overall and in-depth picture of specific regions and their people. In times of globalization renewed interest emerges for the region as an entity, its people, its land- scapes and their roots. Books in this Series will also provide insight in how people from dif- ferent regions in the world will anticipate on and adapt to global challenges as climate change and to supra-regional mitigation measures. This, in turn, will contribute to the ambitions of the International Year of Global Understanding to link the local with the global, to be proclaimed by the United Nations as a UN-Year for 2016, as initiated by the International Geographical Union. Submissions to the Book Series are also invited on the theme ‘The Geography of…’, with a relevant subtitle of the authors/editors choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of War Prospects for Peace
    Georgian Orthodox Church Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung CAUSES OF WAR PROS P E C TS FOR PEA C E Tbilisi, 2009 1 On December 2-3, 2008 the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung held a scientific conference on the theme: Causes of War - Prospects for Peace. The main purpose of the conference was to show the essence of the existing conflicts in Georgia and to prepare objective scientific and information basis. This book is a collection of conference reports and discussion materials that on the request of the editorial board has been presented in article format. Publishers: Metropolitan Ananya Japaridze Katia Christina Plate Bidzina Lebanidze Nato Asatiani Editorial board: Archimandrite Adam (Akhaladze), Tamaz Beradze, Rozeta Gujejiani, Roland Topchishvili, Mariam Lordkipanidze, Lela Margiani, Tariel Putkaradze, Bezhan Khorava Reviewers: Zurab Tvalchrelidze Revaz Sherozia Giorgi Cheishvili Otar Janelidze Editorial board wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Irina Bibileishvili, Merab Gvazava, Nia Gogokhia, Ekaterine Dadiani, Zviad Kvilitaia, Giorgi Cheishvili, Kakhaber Tsulaia. ISBN 2345632456 Printed by CGS ltd 2 Preface by His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia ILIA II; Opening Words to the Conference 5 Preface by Katja Christina Plate, Head of the Regional Office for Political Dialogue in the South Caucasus of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung; Opening Words to the Conference 8 Abkhazia: Historical-Political and Ethnic Processes Tamaz Beradze, Konstantine Topuria, Bezhan Khorava - A
    [Show full text]
  • Zrda Q2 FY2020 Final
    ZRDA ACTIVITY IN GEORGIA FY 2020 QUARTERLY REPORT II April 30, 2020 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics International Inc. ZRDA ACTIVITY IN GEORGIA FY 2020 QUARTERLY REPORT 1I (17) Cooperative Agreement No. AID-114-A-16-00004 Cover photo: AgroStop – project promoting Agro-Tourism & Zrda-supported agro touristic facilities, in the regions. (photo credit: the Georgian Farmers Association) DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. ACRONYMS AIC NGO Abkhazintercont ADC Anaklia Development Consortium AMP Activity Management Plan APMA Agricultural Program Management Agency APA Agency for Protected Areas APS Annual Program Statement BSO Business Support Organization CDF Chachkari Development Fund CHCA Charity Humanitarian Centre “Abkhazeti” DCFTA Deep & Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (EU) DMO Destination Management Organization EOI Expression of Interest F2F USAID Farmer-to-Farmer Activity FSC Farm Service Center FY Fiscal Year G4G USAID Governing for Growth Activity GAP Good Agricultural Practices GARA Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia GEL Georgian Lari GFA Georgian Farmers’ Association GFDC Georgian Farmers Distribution Company GITA Georgia’s Innovation & Technology Agency GLA Georgian Logistics Association GNTA Georgia National Tourism Agency GoG Government of Georgia GRDF Georgian Rural Development Fund HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point ICC Information and Consultation Center IDP Internally Displaced Person IFAD International Fund for Agriculture LEPL Legal Entity of Public Law ZRDA FY 2020 QUARTERLY REPORT II i LOP Life of Project KMS Key Management Solutions Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Development Programme of Georgia 2018-2021 Table of Contents
    REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OF GEORGIA 2018-2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 II. Foreword……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………17 II.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 II.2 Legal provisions......................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 II.3 Programming system ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................18 III.II.4 SituationThe institutional and trends framework with regard of regional to territorial policy................................ cohesion and ................................competitiveness................................…………………………………………………….........................................................2119 II.5 Donor support..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 III.1 General context .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Visual Anthropology and Folklore of the Peripheries Part Three Provinces of Georgia in the Ethnographic Sketches of Nino Brailashvili, 1930-1980S
    Visual Anthropology and Folklore of the Peripheries Part Three Provinces of Georgia in the Ethnographic Sketches of Nino Brailashvili, 1930-1980s By Shorena Kurtsikidze & Vakhtang Chikovani Source of Illustrations: “Georgia As I Saw It, Ethnographic Sketches,” by Nino Brailashvili, Khelovneba Publishers, Tbilisi, 1990 © 2005 Types of Dwelling Structures of the Different Provinces of Georgia Mestia, Upper Svaneti Cholashi Village in Svaneti, 1946 House and Tower in the Ienashi Village, Svaneti, 1944 House of Kosta Pirveli in the Iphari Village, Svaneti, 1944 Women from Racha, Ghebi Village, 1949 Akhieli Village, Arkhoti Community, Khevsureti, 1947 Section of a house in Khevsureti Khevsur Woman with a churn Furniture and Household Utensils Different Types of “Mother-Columns” Sacred Flag-Cross, Iori Gorge Kakheti, 1939-40 Self-appointed Chief-priest and a Sacred Flag-bearer, Iori Gorge, Kakheti, 1939-40 Stand for the Votive Phials, Akhieli Village, Arkhoti Community, Khevsureti, 1947 Possessed Woman in the Khatkhevi Village, Iori Gorge, 1939-40 Small Silver Icons Alehouse of Copala’s Shrine, (interior, section, plan and a bowl for brewing beer) Devtnasoplari, Kushkhevi Village, Iori Gorge, Kakheti, 1939-40 House in the Gremiskhevi Village, Kartli, 1947 Interior of the House with a “Mother-Column,” Shida Kartli, 1947 Western Georgian House “Oda,” 1949 Farming Types of Ploughs in Georgia Means of Transportation and Communication Bullock Cart – “Uremi” Georgians, Ethnic Groups and Their Costumes, Georgian Highlanders: Tush, Khevsurs, Svans
    [Show full text]
  • Archival and Source Studies – Trends and Challenges”
    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE “ARCHIVAL AND SOURCE STUDIES – TRENDS AND CHALLENGES” 24-25 SEPTEMBER TBILISI 2020 THE CONFERENCE OPERATES: GEORGIAN AND ENGLISH TIME LIMIT: PRESENTATION: 15 MINUTES DEBATES: 5 MINUTES 24 SEPTEMBER OPENING SPEECHES FOR THE CONFERENCE - 09:00-09:30 CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS AND ATTENDEES ARE WELCOMED BY: TEONA IASHVILI – GENERAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF GEORGIA DAVID FRICKER – PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON ARCHIVES (ICA), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA JUSSI NUORTEVA – GENERAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF FINLAND CHARLES FARRUGIA – CHAIR OF THE EUROPEAN BRANCH OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON ARCHIVES (EURBICA), DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF MALTA ZAAL ABASHIDZE – DIRECTOR OF KORNELI KEKELIDZE NATIONAL CENTER OF MANUSCRIPTS RISMAG GORDEZIANI – DOCTOR OF PHILOLOGY VASIL KACHARAVA – PRESIDENT OF THE GEORGIAN ASSOCIATION FOR AMERICAN STUDIES 24 SEPTEMBER PART I 09:35 -18:10 MODERATORS: BESIK JACHVLIANI NINO BADASHVILI, SABA SALUASHVILI 09:35 - 09:55 THE EXPEDITION OF PUBLIUS CANIDIUS CRASSUS TO IBERIA (36 BC) Levan Tavlalashvili, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University 10:00 - 10:20 CAUSES OF VIKING ATTACKS, ASPIRATION TO THE WEST (8TH-12TH CENTURIES) Mariam Gurgenidze, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University 10:25 - 10:45 FOR THE ISSUES OF THE SOURCES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CRUSADERS Tea Gogolishvili, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University 10:50 - 11:10 THE CULT OF MITHRAS IN GEORGIA Ketevan Kimeridze, The University of Georgia 11:15 - 11:35
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Complexity in the Caucasus Impedes Genetic
    Wayne State University Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints WSU Press 4-4-2017 Landscape Complexity in the Caucasus impedes Genetic Assimilation of Human Populations More Effectively than Language or Ethnicity David Tarkhnishvili Ilia State University, Tbilisi, [email protected] Alexander Gavashelishvili Ilia State University Marine Murtskhvaladze Ilia State University, Tbilisi Ardashel Latsuzbaia Ilia State University, Tbilisi Recommended Citation Tarkhnishvili, David; Gavashelishvili, Alexander; Murtskhvaladze, Marine; and Latsuzbaia, Ardashel, "Landscape Complexity in the Caucasus impedes Genetic Assimilation of Human Populations More Effectively than Language or Ethnicity" (2017). Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints. 105. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/105 This Open Access Preprint is brought to you for free and open access by the WSU Press at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Biology Open Access Pre-Prints by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. Landscape Complexity in the Caucasus impedes Genetic Assimilation of Human Populations More Effectively than Language or Ethnicity David Tarkhnishvili ¶*1, Alexander Gavashelishvili¶1, Marine Murtskhvaladze1, Ardashel Latsuzbaia1 1Ilia State University, Cholokashvili Str. 5, 0162 Tbilisi, Georgia Corresponding author: David Tarkhnishvili, Quantitative Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, Ilia State University, Cholokashvili Str. 5, 0162 Tbilisi, Georgia Issue: 88.4 Running header: Autosomal differentiation
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Georgia on the Development of High Mountainous Regions
    LAW OF GEORGIA ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH MOUNTAINOUS REGIONS The policy implemented by the State towards high mountainous regions is part of the regional development policy of the country and is aimed at ensuring the equal socio-economic development of the entire territory of Georgia and at solving the social and economic problems of persons living in high mountainous regions. The aim of this Law is to determine the benefits of encouraging the social and economic progress of high mountainous regions as guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia; such benefits ensure the well-being of persons living in high mountainous regions, raise living standards, promote employment and improve social and economic conditions. Article 1 - Definition of terms The terms used in this Law, for the purposes of this Law, have the following meanings: a) customer (residential user) – a person who is permanently resident in a high mountainous region, who has signed a contract on the provision of electricity supply services with a relevant license holder (the Licensee) according to procedures established by the legislation of Georgia; b) high mountainous region – a high mountainous settlement; c) high mountainous settlement - settlement provided for by Article 4(1) of the organic legislation of Georgia on the Local Self-Government Code, and which is included in the list of high mountainous regions of Georgia approved by the Government of Georgia. d) a teacher – a person who has the professional knowledge, skills and relevant qualifications as determined by the
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia and South Africa
    Home Countries What About More Gallery WE ARE HERE TO MAKE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE. WITH TOURS ALL YEAR ROUND AROUND IN GEORGIA AND SOUTH AFRICA. WE ARE A COMPANY WITH OFFICES BASED IN GEORGIA AND SOUTH AFRICA WITH A VARIETY OF TOURS IN DIFFERENT COUNTY’S. WE ONLY HAVE SMALL GROUP TOURS WITH 6-8PEOPLE ON A TOUR TO DELIVER THOSE MOMENTS WHEN YOU KNOW TRULY ALIVE AND EXPERIENCE SOMETHING SPECIAL, WHICH OPENS UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR AN EXPERIENCE A BIG GROUP OF PEOPLE ONLY DREAM OF. WE DON’T WANT OUR TOURS TO BE MORE THAN A BOX TICKING OFF BUT A MEMORIAL EXPERIENCE. SHARE THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT TAKE YOUR BREATH AWAY, BUT IT’S THE SIMPLE, SPONTANEOUS MOMENTS AWAY FROM THE CROWDS THAT STAY WITH US THE MOST. WHETHER IT’S EXCHANGING STORIES AT A LOCAL HOME STAY OR CRAMMING IN TO A TINY RESTAURANT HIDDEN AWAY FROM THE MAIN STREETS, THE REAL MAGIC HAPPENS DURING MOMENTS THAT CAN ONLY BY EXPERIENCE AS A SMALL GROUP. THESE KIND OF EXPERIENCES JUST AREN’T POSSIBLE WHEN TRAVELLING WITH A BIG GROUP. AS WE ARE LOCAL TO THESE COUNTRY’S OF OUR TOURS WE CAN KEEP IT LOCAL AND SHOW YOUR OUR GEMS OF EACH COUNTRY. WHEREVER WE CAN WE WILL USE EXPERIENCES THAT ARE LOCAL, STAY IN SMALL LOCALLY RUN ACCOMMODATION AND EAT AT LOCAL RESTAURANTS. THIS MEANS THAT YOU ARE NOT ONLY GETTING A REAL, AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCE, BUT ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY. WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH IN OUR ITINERARIES, OPERATORS AND ACCOMMODATION SO YOU CAN FOCUS ON HAVING ON YOUR EXPERIENCE.
    [Show full text]