"Kartvelian Heritage" is the electronic copy of the annual scientific publication "Kartvelian Heritage" (ISSN 1512-09-53) of Tariel Putkaradze Kartvelology Scientific-Research Center at the Faculty of Humanities at Akaki Tsereteli State University (Kutaisi, Georgia). The proceedings of the international symposia "Kutaisi Discussions" organised by the Scientific-Research Center of Kartvelology, reviewed research papers in Kartvelology (linguistics, literary studies, folklore, historiography, culture studies, ethnology, etc.) and the texts of Kartvelian dialects obtained by the staff of the Centre are published in this journal. Journal DOI: https://doi.org/10.52340/PUTK E-ISSN: 2960-9186 P-ISSN: 1512-0953 Publisher: Akaki TSereteli State University Publishing House (Address: 4600, Kutaisi, 59 Tamar Mepe Str.)
Akaki TSereteli State University Publishing House (Address: 4600, Kutaisi, 59 Tamar Mepe Str.))
Under The License Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0 Deed , the authors retain all rights. The authors grant a publisher the exclusive right to publish the work for the first time, but they do not assign ownership.
Georgian–Turkish Linguistic Contacts and Lexical Interference in Adjarian Incantations (Analysis of Fieldwork Materials)
The present study examines Georgian–Turkish linguistic contacts and lexical interference in Adjarian incantations, which represent one of the oldest layers of Georgian folk medicine. As a form of verbal magic, incantations combine naturopathic and magico-religious elements, while their linguistic structure represents an important source for the study of Georgian dialectology and ethnolinguistics. The texts preserved in Adjara reflect centuries of cultural and linguistic interaction between Georgians and Turks, manifested at the linguistic level through lexical borrowing, phonological adaptation, and semantic assimilation. The empirical basis of the study consists of incantations recorded during a field ethnographic expedition conducted in 2023 in the Chvana Valley. These materials were analyzed through phonological, etymological, and semantic-comparative methods. This methodological framework made it possible to identify the origin, functional role, and integration patterns of Turkish lexemes in the incantations. The analysis revealed that words of Turkish origin occur both in the titles of incantations (Baskhuni, Dartsnili, Gvejo) and within textual constructions, where they contribute to magical symbolism and emotional intensity. The analyzed texts exhibit clear examples of phonological adaptation (asker → esk’eri, baskın → baskhuni), as well as instances of syntactic calquing (rica etmek → rija uk’ot gvejos). Despite the presence of such interference elements, the deeper structure of the incantations— their rhythmic organization and religious-magical layers—remains firmly embedded within the Georgian cultural system. The findings of the study demonstrate that linguistic contacts in Adjarian incantations do not undermine Georgian tradition; on the contrary, they facilitate its enrichment and transformation. Thus, linguistic and cultural integration in this context may be interpreted as a process of synthesis that confirms the vitality of Georgian folk culture, its capacity for adaptation, and its multilayered ethnolinguistic foundation.
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors Retain All Rights. The Journal Retains the Right of the First Publication https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Bilal Dindar (Mikeladze): Translator of Rustaveli’s The Knight in the Panther’s Skin into Turkish
The present study is devoted to Bilal Dindar, a scholar and translator based in Turkey, who produced the first complete Turkish translation of Rustaveli’s The Knight in the Panther’s Skin, a landmark of world literature and the crown jewel of Georgian cultural tradition. The translation was published in 1991. Bilal Dindar’s contribution to Georgian culture is particularly significant in that he remains the only translator to have rendered the poem in its entirety into Turkish. Through his work, Turkish readers gained the opportunity to engage more profoundly with this seminal Georgian masterpiece, a text composed centuries ago yet still resonant and relevant in contemporary literary discourse. Dindar did not translate the poem directly from the Georgian original. As he himself notes, he relied primarily on Sergi Tzuladze’s French translation and on the Azerbaijani version produced in the 1930s by the poet Ahmad Javad, first published in 1978. Owing to this methodological approach, both Turkologists and Rustvelologists observe numerous inaccuracies in his translation. These are partly attributable to the challenges inherent in mediated translation and partly to the cultural distance between Christian and Muslim cultural traditions. Nevertheless, despite the existing critical assessments, it should be recognized that Dindar—together with his Azerbaijani colleague, Associate Professor Zeynalabidin Maka—managed to overcome the considerable difficulties posed by the poem’s complex metrical structure, semantic depth, and rich historical and cultural layers. It is particularly noteworthy that, to this day, no direct Turkish translation of The Knight in the Panther’s Skin from the Georgian original exists. Consequently, Dindar’s Turkish rendition remains an invaluable contribution, opening a new avenue for the reception of Georgian classical literature. Thus, Bilal Dindar’s translation of Shota Rustaveli’s brilliant epic not only fosters the development of Georgian–Turkish cultural relations but also enhances the global visibility and intellectual recognition of Georgian literary heritage.
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors Retain All Rights. The Journal Retains the Right of the First Publication
The Reception of Orhan Pamuk's Fiction in the Georgian Literary Context
The present article examines the reception of the fiction of the Turkish Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk within the Georgian literary context. The study aims to demonstrate how Pamuk’s texts—marked by a distinctive postmodernist vision—have been perceived by Georgian scholars, translators, and readers passionate about literature. The analysis is based on the extensive material that has been published in the Georgian literary field over many years. An examination of the available materials shows that Orhan Pamuk is widely recognized in Turkish literature as an epochal figure and as a catalyst for its modernization. Through his work, Turkish prose gained greater visibility within the context of global literary processes. Therefore, the Georgian readership’s interest in Pamuk’s works is neither a matter of literary fashion nor a tendency driven solely by the Nobel Prize; rather, it stems from long-established cultural, historical, and literary processes. His texts thus act as an “emotional bridge” in relation to Georgian culture. The evaluations presented by the authors discussed in the article address not only the Georgian translations of Orhan Pamuk’s fiction, but also the wider literary ecosystem: translation policy, cultural initiatives, and the overall environment that determines the ways in which world literature becomes integrated into the Georgian cultural context. The example of Orhan Pamuk clearly demonstrates that, despite certain challenges, Georgia has the capacity to engage actively in contemporary literary processes. This is evidenced by numerous studies that regard Pamuk as a distinguished and influential figure fostering intercultural dialogue. As demonstrated by Georgian literary criticism, Orhan Pamuk’s oeuvre constitutes not merely a literary undertaking but also a mode of philosophical and civilizational dialogue—a discursive space wherein East and West coexist and interact within a shared humanistic framework.
Selected Turkish Loanwords in the Georgian Literary Language and in Megrelian
The Georgian literary language contains numerous Turkish loanwords, resulting from the centuries-long political, economic, and cultural relations between Georgia and Turkey. Many Turkish words have become established in the speech of those Georgian regions bordering Turkey or historically falling within its sphere of influence—for example, the Adjarian, Gurian, Meskhetian (Samtskhe–Javakhetian), and Imerkhevian dialects. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453), Georgia and the Ottoman state became neighboring political entities. Turkish influence on Georgia intensified and extended to every sphere of life, including language. Numerous Turkish socio-economic terms are attested in Georgian documentary sources dating from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. At the same time, many Turkish lexical items spread through oral transmission into Georgian dialects. The present research investigates Turkish loanwords in the Georgian literary language and in Megrelian. The study revealed that the Georgian literary language has assimilated far more Turkish lexical items than Megrelian. This may be explained by Georgian–Turkish political relations, which were reflected primarily in the literary language and subsequently in its dialects. In Georgian literary language and Megrelian there are terms denoting units of weight and measure, monetary units, military and work tools, professions, offices, social status, clothing, and other categories. Many Turkish lexical borrowings have become permanently established in Georgian and have undergone full linguistic integration. Without them, the Modern Georgian language would be difficult to imagine.
The Laz-Style Balcony of the Dadiani Palace
The Dadiani palace complex in Zugdidi has a long history. It is assumed that the foundations of the first palace were laid during the reign of Levan II Dadiani (1611–1657). After the death of the grand prince, his successors settled there and transformed the Zugdidi palace into their principal residence. “The Prince of Samegrelo possesses more than fifty palaces, the most magnificent of which is the palace of Zugdidi. Built of fine stone, it is distinguished both by its spaciousness and by the beauty of its windows, balconies, and artwork.” — This is how the Italian missionary Arcangelo Lamberti described the stunning residence of one of the most powerful feudal rulers of the period. According to historical sources, several palaces once stood on the large field where the present architectural ensemble is now located. It seems that every powerful ruler founded his own residence there. The last ruling princess of Samegrelo, Ekaterine Chavchavadze-Dadiani, was likewise not an exception. Preferring a new residence to the palace of her husband, Davit Dadiani, she initiated extensive construction works within the residence complex. Under her direction, the present main palace of Zugdidi was renovated and expanded, together with its wings, pediment, and the northern balconies embellished with finely carved decorative railings. Most of the surviving historical sources relate to the construction of this main palace, also known as the Queen’s Palace. It appears that the queen intended to build a grand residence in the European style. The architectural project was most likely prepared in Europe or Russia, as it was reportedly seen in Paris by Ekaterine Dadiani's friend, Bertha von Suttner. The princes of Samegrelo and their palaces were renowned throughout the Caucasus for their wealth and power.
On Certain Wedding Traditions in Megrelian–Laz (Based on Folklore and Ethnographic Materials)
The institution of marriage and the customs associated with it have undergone a long process of development. Marriage, historically formed as a socially conditioned relationship between a woman and a man, evolved and transformed alongside society. Folk art demonstrates the culture of a nation and reveals its ancient heritage; it contains valuable material that expresses the uniqueness of a people’s national worldview. In the present study, the discussion of customs serves an auxiliary function and is employed only when such analysis helps clarify the nature of a folkloric monument and thus contributes to a better understanding of the work. The ethnographic observations of a folklorist are always determined by the traditional nature of oral literature. Within the scope of the present study, Laz and Megrelian wedding traditions are examined, with the aim of identifying their similarities and differences, with particular attention devoted to wedding folklore. It is worth mentioning that folklore represents a distinctive historical record of a people; therefore, the study of oral folklore materials is particularly important, as they preserve and revitalize folk customs. Numerous shared features can be observed in Laz and Megrelian wedding traditions, which is natural given that the Laz and Megrelians represent parts of the same Georgian ethnos. Differences between certain traditions are conditioned by religious factors, centuries of close contact with various cultures, and other circumstances.
Issues of Georgian-Turkish Relations in the Publicistic Writings of Kita Abashidze
The prominent Georgian public figure and critic Kita (Ivane) Abashidze (1870-1917) published in 1915-1916 a series of articles devoted to neighboring peoples in the newspaper Megobari (“Friend”), later renamed Chveni Megobari (“Our Friend”), the press organ of the Kutaisi organization of the Georgian Socialist-Federalist Party. Initially he published ten articles entitled We and the Armenians and two entitled We and the Tatars. In our opinion, the publication of these articles was conditioned by two circumstances: First, in 1914 a book by the Armenian author B. Ishkhanyan was published in Tbilisi under the title The Economic and Social Foundations of the Hostility Between Georgians and Armenians, in which Georgian-Armenian relations are presented in an extremely biased and one-sided manner. Second, the Viceroy of the Caucasus, Vorontsov-Dashkov (1905-1915), who pursued a pro-Armenian policy, was recalled from the region. In his publications, the author addressed several important issues concerning Georgian- Armenian relations. Among them was the Armenian aspiration toward hegemony in Transcaucasia, which, according to the author, was facilitated by the Russian administration in the Caucasus—allegedly bribed and influenced by the Armenian bourgeoisie—under the leadership of the Viceroy Vorontsov-Dashkov. In his articles, K. Abashidze strongly opposed these Armenian aspirations. His polemic with Armenian nationalist circles led Kita Abashidze to articulate the position of Georgian society toward other neighboring peoples and to clarify their attitudes on matters that had become the subject of dispute and controversy. As noted above, two of his articles (We and the Tatars) were devoted to relations with the Tatars (i.e., Azerbaijanis) and were published in the newspaper Chveni Megobari.
Some Features of the Speech of the Georgian-origin Population of Imerkhevi (Code-Switching)
The present article examines features of the speech of the ethnically Georgian population living in the Republic of Turkey, formed as a result of complex historical processes. Despite centuries of political and cultural transformations, the Georgian language has remained a stable and resilient system—an organism that neither difficult historical conditions nor the passage of time could dismantle, as it has served as the main foundation of unity and cultural identity for ethnic Georgians. The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the semantic changes that have emerged in the speech of the Imerkhevi population as a result of Georgian–Turkish linguistic interference, manifested in common Kartvelian lexical units under the influence of Turkish. The analysis of the material revealed several phenomena that may be considered atypical within the Georgian linguistic domain. It was established that in the speech of the Imerkhevi community such features—distinct from both the Georgian standard language and dialectal forms—are the direct result of Turkish linguistic influence. By way of illustration, both verbal and nominal stems are examined, including such forms as dak’argva (“to lose”), dach’era (“to catch”), dabargva (“to pack up”), gagheba (“to open”), and gamots’eva (“to pull out”), among others. The results of the present study demonstrate that the semantic peculiarities of these stems are conditioned by the mixing of linguistic codes. Based on empirical and theoretical data, their forms and meanings were analyzed, the relationships between them were established, and the interpretation of the findings made it possible to draw the corresponding conclusions. The underlying basis of these linguistic forms appears to be the complete bilingualism of Imerkhevi Georgians.
From Kars to Paris: The Life and Creative Path of Mikheil Bilanishvili
Mikheil Bilanishvili (1901–1934) was a prominent Georgian painter who became part of the vibrant Parisian avant-garde milieu of the 1920s. Born in Kağızman, he later relocated with his family to Tbilisi. After completing his education at the Tbilisi Boys’ Gymnasium, he enrolled in the Academy of Arts, specializing in painting under the guidance of Gigo Gabashvili. He subsequently continued his artistic education in Paris at the school of the renowned French Cubist painter André Lhote. Bilanishvili is recognized for introducing elements of Cubism, Expressionism, and Surrealism into Georgian visual art. Bilanashvili’s artistic oeuvre is characterized by remarkable diversity, encompassing portraits, landscapes, and still lifes. His painting Georgian Woman is distinguished by their emotional intensity, a contemplative mood, and harmonious color palette. In his self-portraits, the artist’s inner state is expressed through energetic brushstrokes and pronounced contrasts of light and shadow, giving the portrait both volume and dynamism. In portraits such as that of Dr. Gambashvili, the geometric fragmentation of forms reflects a Cubist-Expressionist manner. His still lifes follow classical European traditions, while his Paris Landscape captures the dynamism, lighting, and atmosphere of the city with remarkable clarity. Mikheil Bilanishvili’s theoretical study titled The Principles of Art and Niko Pirosmanishvili emphasizes the importance of composition and explores the relationship between academicism and modernism, representing a significant contribution to this discourse. The hardships of émigré life and declining health led to the artist’s premature death. His works are preserved in the Georgian National Museum of Fine Arts as well as in various international collections. Bilanishvili’s artistic legacy played a significant role in the development of Georgian modernism through the integration of national motifs with contemporary European artistic movements. His style is distinguished by innovative vision, technical refinement, and genre diversity, which establish him as a prominent figure in Georgian painting.
The Semantics of the Word "Koki" in Georgian
Dialectal speech continues to preserve lexical units originating from Old Georgian that have undergone varying degrees of formal and semantic change over the centuries. In this regard, particularly valuable material is largely retained in figurative expressions. Scholars of Georgian dialectology also recognize that, since the latter half of the twentieth century, the linguistic areas of the principal dialects have been changing rapidly. Due to ongoing socio-economic processes and other factors affecting public life, dialectal lexemes are gradually disappearing, some being lost entirely, while others survive only as part of the historical record of dialectology. Unfortunately, this process is even more pronounced in settlements with small linguistic communities, especially in villages where dialect mixing occurs as a result of internal migration of the local population and the demographic or linguistic expansion of speakers of other dialects. Considering that this phenomenon (linguistic tendency) has become a natural process in the Georgian linguistic landscape of the twenty-first century, as dialectal speech is no longer able to survive in villages almost entirely depopulated of their local inhabitants, the revival of even a single lexical unit becomes particularly valuable and necessary. The present article is intended precisely to serve this purpose. In Old Georgian, the word koki was an independent lexeme referring to a thorn-covered tree branch "prepared for striking others." This meaning remained in use until approximately the eighteenth century. Presumably around this time (primarily in the southwestern dialects of Georgian), the word kök of Turkish origin, phonetically similar to Georgian koki, entered the language with meanings such as “root,” “origin,” “lineage,” or “descent,” and related concepts. Consequently, this new semantic value is already attested in eighteenth-century Georgian sources (see Saba: “gvarsavitaa”, D. Guramishvili, among others). From the nineteenth century onward, when the Georgian language already possessed several synonymous words such as jishi ‘breed,’ gvari ‘family name,’ pesvi ‘root,’ dziri ‘root,’ and modgma ‘lineage,’ the Turkish-derived koki, survived in its original meaning only in curse formulas, appearing in various verbal and nominal forms.
Levan Geladze was a distinguished twentieth-century poet and public figure. He is the author of numerous poems and articles. Although a physician by profession, he also cared deeply about the spiritual development of the society. His work is distinguished by its engaging character and meaningful content. In addition to his poems and newspaper articles, Levan Geladze authored the poem Gunesh, which is remarkable both for its poetic form and its thematic content. From the very beginning of the poem, two characters are introduced: Nuri Beg and Harun, who are old friends who have shared many hardships together. Harun asks Nuri Beg for the hand of his only daughter, Gunesh, in marriage. This promise had been made by the friends long before: when they fought together against Memed-Beg, Nuri was wounded and his life was saved by Harun. At that moment the friends agreed that they would unite their families through the marriage of their children and that their friendship would thus continue. Through a single narrative episode, Levan Geladze illustrates a broader problem: outdated customs and traditions hinder the younger generation’s development, freedom, and capacity for independent thought. Empty pride proves destructive; when the welfare of a family and the future of a child are at stake, the willingness to step back may elevate a person rather than humiliate them. One of the author’s principal intentions was to bring Aslan, a representative of the younger generation, to an awareness of this truth. In doing so, the author demonstrates the triumph of the new over the old. Although achieved at the cost of great sacrifice, great undertakings often demand great sacrifice. Levan Geladze’s poem Gunesh depicts the confrontation between the old and the new and challenges established social stereotypes. A compelling parallel may be drawn between Geladze’s Gunesh, Vazha-Pshavela’s Aluda Ketelauri, and Jemal Karchkhadze’s Igi. Gunesh is an outstanding poetic work that deserves further comprehensive scholarly research.
Complex-Stem Verbs in the Speech of Georgians in Turkey
The verb is one of the most important parts of speech in the Georgian language, distinguished by its polypersonal nature and the diversity of its morphological formation. It represents a stable linguistic category that has been largely preserved from external influences throughout time and across different regions. These features of the Georgian verb have led us to explore the nature of verbal word formation in the speech of Georgians living in Turkey. The purpose of this study is therefore to examine verbs with complex stems preserved in the speech of Turkey-based Georgian communities, to conduct a structural and semantic analysis of these forms, and to compare them with data from Georgian dialects and spoken language. At the same time, the research seeks to clarify certain debated issues concerning verbal word formation and structure, particularly the terminology employed in the scholarly literature, including “complex verbs,” “verbal composites,” and “fused verbs.” These considerations determine the relevance of the present study. It examines various patterns of verbal formation, including: 1. verbal antonymy within composite constructions (e.g., ats’evden–dadebden ‘they raised – they set down’); 2. formations linked by the conjunction da ‘and’ (e.g., gaats’ura da gamaats’ura ‘pushed out and pulled out’; gasts’ia da gamosts’ia ‘pulled and pulled out’); 3. verbs containing a negative particle, for example arducha / aducha (< ar + duurča ‘did not remain’, functioning as a place name); 4. verbs characterized by complex structure and dual semantic value (e.g., tkhrashdamitsa ‘to strike, to beat’; latsdamitsa ‘to slap, to strike with the palm’); 5. verbal forms with two-component roots (e.g., muukhelpekhos ‘to lend a hand, to help’; daatvalqure ‘to look over, to inspect’), among others. The study further identifies verbal lexical units of Turkish origin as well as mixed Turkish–Georgian and Persian–Arabic formations. The analysis of the dialectal material makes it possible to conclude that the complex-stem verbs attested in the speech of Georgians living in Turkey, despite the influence of the Turkish language, are predominantly Common Kartvelian forms and remain systematic within the structure of the Georgian language.
Phraseological Units with Emotional Components in English, Turkish, and Georgian (Comparative Analysis)
The presence of phraseological units across languages constitutes a distinctive linguistic phenomenon. Emotional phraseological units express positive, neutral, and negative emotions, whether definite or indefinite. The present study examines phraseological units with emotional components in English, Turkish, and Georgian, taking into consideration their structural, semantic, and cultural characteristics. A comparative study of phraseology in unrelated languages enables the identification of language-specific features as well as typological similarities and differences in both semantic content and expression. A comparative analysis of phraseological units in English, Georgian, and Turkish reveals several common features: • The somatic component heart functions as a means of expressing love or emotional states; • The lexeme eyes is associated with emotional expressiveness (tears, attraction, anger); • Blood represents intense emotional states, particularly anger (e.g., “blood boiling,” a phraseological expression attested in all three languages); • Face / mouth is used to convey emotional states such as happiness or sadness. In the languages under consideration, phraseological units expressed through identical somatic elements are attested, conveying human emotions (e.g., anger, rage) in both comparable form and meaning. As regards the differences, emotional phraseology in English is predominantly based on metaphorical and idiomatic constructions; in Georgian it is characterized by figurative expressions grounded in somatic elements and conveying intense emotions, whereas in Turkish it tends to reflect social values and forms marked by a relatively moderate emotional tone. The examples examined constitute clear evidence that phraseological units containing emotional components in English, Georgian, and Turkish—primarily characterized by somatic elements—demonstrate the presence of linguistic universals, that is, linguistic phenomena that are common to all or most languages of the world.
Turkisms in the Speech of the Village of Ghorjomi
The present study examines Turkish lexical borrowings in the Adjarian dialect of the Georgian language and analyzes the processes of their integration into the language, with specific reference to the speech of the village of Ghorjomi. The historical circumstances—namely the Ottoman occupation of southern Georgia—contributed to centuries of lexical influence that can still be observed in the Adjarian dialect today. The loanwords include both purely Turkish elements and items of Persian and Arabic origin that entered Georgian through Turkish and subsequently became established in the language. The aim of the present study is to identify the semantic, phonetic, and grammatical characteristics of borrowed lexical units. The material was compiled from lexicographic sources as well as through fieldwork conducted during direct meetings with the local population. The analysis reveals that some foreign lexical units are employed with their original meanings (e.g. bela, takhumi), while others have undergone semantic change. Instances of calquing are also attested in forms adapted to the local linguistic context (e.g. yoldashi, kestane, havli). Particular attention is paid to the use of foreign stems within Georgian word-formation structures (with the suffixes -ian, -oba, and the prefix–suffix combination u-...-o), as well as to Turkish calques conveyed through Georgian verbal models. The analysis clearly demonstrates that the speech of Ghorjomi actively employs Turkisms, which in certain cases undergo semantic modification and are integrated into the grammatical system of Georgian. The research is important both for Georgian dialectology and for understanding the historical development of the Georgian language.
Anthroponyms of the Greater Liakhvi Valley Based on 18th-Century Georgian and Turkish Census Records
Among the demographic documentary monuments of the valley, special attention should be paid to the census registers of the city of Tskhinvali and its surrounding villages (second half of the eighteenth century), published by the Meridiani publishing house in 2013. Another source of primary importance is the Great Defter of the Tbilisi Vilayet of 1728, prepared for publication by Academician Sergi Jikia and Professor Nodar Shengelia (published in 2009). Both census records document not only the settlements of other valleys but also those of the Greater Liakhvi Valley, together with the surnames and personal names of its inhabitants. In the first half of the eighteenth century, the political situation in the Kingdom of Kartli deteriorated as a result of Iranian and Ottoman aggression, ultimately leading to the Ottoman conquest of Kartli. Following their arrival in Kartli, the Ottomans introduced their taxation system and compiled registers in which the relevant data were recorded. One such document is the Great Defter of the Tbilisi Vilayet, which contains data from that period and remains of considerable importance not only from a political perspective. The present study examines materials from the Ottoman census records, focusing on the anthroponyms of the villages of Tskhinvali and Tamarasheni of the time, as well as the surnames and personal names documented in the Georgian census records that precede the Ottoman census materials by approximately fifty years. In the Georgian census records, the structure of surnames is presented as a combination of a given name and a surname, while in the Turkish census records, it appears as a given name followed by the father’s name (patronymic). In his Description of Georgia (18th century), Vakhushti Bagrationi states that the inhabitants of Tskhinvali consisted of Georgians, Armenians, and Jews. In both census records these ethnic groups are reflected through anthroponyms. The Georgian census records additionally employs the distinctive term uria to designate Jewish inhabitants. According to the Georgian records, the residents of Tskhinvali were divided into several social categories.
The Semantics of Certain Verbal Forms in the Klarjetian Dialect
The Klarjetian dialect represents one of the historically most deeply rooted and distinctive dialects of the Georgian language, preserving both archaic and innovative linguistic elements to this day. It was historically spoken in the region of Klarjeti, while today it survives primarily among Georgian-speaking communities residing in the border areas of Georgia and Turkey. Klarjeti speech is not an isolated linguistic entity; rather, it is organically integrated into the broader system of Georgian dialects, reflecting both local and general Kartvelian linguistic tendencies. Scholarly observations suggest that the linguistic situation in the Klarjeti region is divided into two distinct areas: in one part, Georgian speech continues to be heard, while in the other, it has largely been replaced by Turkish. Even though Georgian is no longer actively spoken in this part of Klarjeti, significant cultural and linguistic elements have been preserved, including toponyms, Georgian forms of personal names, fragments of oral tradition, and lexical traces observable in local Turkish dialects. This study focuses on the formal and semantic features of the verb as one of the most important lexical-grammatical units of the language in the Klarjetian dialect. The analysis addresses such verbal forms as brdzaneba (“to command”) used with the meaning “to offer or serve food,” a semantic value not attested in Standard Georgian but documented both in dialectal usage and in old Georgian literary sources (e.g., puri brdzanet “please take bread”). The verb dajdoma (“to sit down”) is also examined. In the Klarjeti dialect and, more broadly, in southern dialects it conveys the meaning “to live, settle, or enter a household” (e.g., davj̇eqit otkh ts’eli ert sakhshi “We lived in one house for four years”; kali mev̇ida, daj̇da, amis kalida gavkhdeo “woman came, settled, and became his wife / joined a household”). The research is based on old Georgian written sources and lexicographical works, as well as contemporary corpus data, and oral linguistic materials. The aim of the study is to highlight the distinctive features of Klarjeti dialect as a living and dynamic linguistic variety and to contribute to the advancement of Georgian dialectological studies
Dimitri Shalikashvili’s “The Diplomatic Representation of Georgia in Turkey in 1921”: A Text of the Memoir Genre
Dimitri Shalikashvili represents one of the prominent figures of the Georgian émigré community of the 1920s. As a Georgian military attaché, he left behind a significant legacy that includes diaries, memoirs, and articles published in the émigré press. These texts form part of the valuable cultural heritage preserved by Georgian emigrants. Dimitri Shalikashvili’s works are no exception in this regard. Such writings are always distinguished both by their vivid depiction of historical circumstances and by their emotional engagement with the cultural and social processes of the past. It is well documented that in 1921 the representation of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918–1921) was present in Ankara—then known as Angora—with the objective of establishing diplomatic relations with Turkish Kemalist authorities. The notes of Dimitri Shalikashvili provide an account of this diplomatic mission. The diaries of D. Shalikashvili encompass several important aspects. The entries distinctly reflect the aspirations of the democratic government of Georgia and the relations between Georgia and Turkey at the time. They vividly preserve the cultural and social realities of early twentieth-century Turkey, and document attitudes toward the Bolsheviks in Turkey. The diaries represent a text of multifaceted scholarly and cultural significance. They form an integral part of the historical narrative of the First Democratic Republic of Georgia, conveyed through the author’s adventures and those of other participants in the events described. The text vividly reconstructs the international atmosphere of the early twentieth century and reveals the dramatic dependence of a small and embattled nation upon the geopolitical interests of other powers. At the same time, the work is of considerable importance as a memoir text, displaying numerous stylistic markers characteristic of the author's narrative manner, including skillfully rendered portraits of historical personalities, distinct personal traits, and detailed observations concerning hospitality, environment, clothing, and other aspects of everyday life. Through such descriptive observations and characteristic digressive passages, the text also acquires particular significance from a cultural perspective, revealing the author’s broad intellectual outlook and expansive thinking. For these reasons, The Diplomatic Representation of Georgia in Turkey in 1921 may be regarded as one of the significant examples of Georgian émigré literary heritage.
Among Georgians resettled in Turkey over different periods, the enduring spiritual connection to the homeland was sustained through the intergenerational transmission of language, which embodied a cultural code that preserved their sense of identity. The Sovietization of Georgia rendered the historical homeland even more distant for these communities, particularly in the context of strained Turkish–Soviet relations. The prospect that younger generations born and raised in Turkey might gradually lose awareness of their origins became a serious concern. It appears that this concern motivated Georgian patriots in Turkey to establish a periodical aimed at representing Georgian life, culture, and history. The present study examines the cultural periodical Mamuli (“Homeland”), published in Turkey, which has thus far remained largely unknown to the Georgian public. At different times, several journals shaped the cultural life of ethnic Georgians in Turkey. In 1921-1922, Tavisupali Sakartvelo (“Free Georgia”) was published, followed decades later by Çhveneburi (“one of us”, “of our people/country”), whose editor, Fahrettin Çiloğlu (Parna Chiladze), undertook the publication of Mamuli. Published in Istanbul in 1997-1998, Mamuli appeared primarily in Turkish but occasionally included articles in Georgian. It featured sections on art, literature, ethnography, politics, and a children’s rubric presenting selections of Georgian poetry and didactic fables in both languages. The periodical devoted special attention to issues relating to the Georgian language and literature, introducing readers to the works of renowned Georgian writers through the section titled “Portraits from Georgian Literature.” The journal further constructed a distinctive representation of Georgian cities for the Georgian diaspora in Turkey and featured articles addressing various Caucasian peoples. Although only five issues appeared in print, Mamuli played a measurable role in preserving ethnic Georgians’ linguistic and cultural identity in Turkey and in promoting Georgian culture within the Turkish context.
Postpositional Forms/Morphemoids tsin and ukan in the Speech of the Georgian Diaspora in Turkey (Based on Tao Dialect Material)
The Tao dialect has undergone intensive contact with Turkish over the course of several centuries. Despite this prolonged influence, the fundamental structural framework of Georgian remains comparatively well preserved within the dialect. Of particular interest are the forms ts’in (“before”) and ukan (“after”), which are originally adverbial in nature but employed as postpositions as well. In scholarly literature, these units are classified as postpositional morphemoids. The present study examines the morphemoids ts’in and ukan from both formal and functional-semantic perspectives. It demonstrates their realizational patterns, phonetic variants, and semantic nuances in relation to Standard Georgian and dialectal usage. The analysis is based on dialectal materials recorded during expeditions in the Georgian villages of Tao between 2011 and 2022 and preserved at the Tariel Putkaradze Kartvelology Research Center of ATSU, as well as on published samples of Tao speech. In the Tao dialect, the morphemoids ts’in and ukan typically occur with dative or genitive case forms and appear with both nouns and pronouns. The postpositional morphemoid ts’in is attested in the following variants in the Tao dialect: ts’in, ts’ine, ts’ints’in / ts’ina-ts’in ts’inidam / ts’inedam, and ts’ina. It carries different meanings and may indicate: a) spatial reference, as in k’okhi ts’inidam dajdebi (“you will sit in front of the hut”); b) temporal reference, as in tkhutmeti ts’lis ts’in ak’ viqavit (“we were here fifteen years ago”). The morphemoid ukan is attested in several variants, including ukan, uknidam, masukan / masuka / maskvan / maskva. Semantically, it displays considerable diversity. It expresses: a) spatial reference: im tis ukan chakhval; b) temporal reference: ert c’li ukan moq’q’vavs; c) associative/accompaniment function: kharept ukan, ch’iftis ukan kalo vijebodit. The analysis of Tao dialectal data indicates that, even under significant Turkish linguistic influence, the structural organization and semantic differentiation of the postpositional morphemoids ts’in and ukan in the speech of Tao’s autochthonous Georgian population remain predominantly Georgian. In some cases, certain dialect-specific features are also attested.
Over the centuries, the strong influence of Turkish in historical Tao has gradually weakened the position of the Georgian language, pointing to an ongoing process of assimilation. Turkish operates as the official language of communication in Tao, functioning as the state language of the Republic of Turkey across institutional and public spheres, while Georgian is largely restricted to intra-familial and domestic contexts, where it frequently encounters competition from Turkish. Despite this unequal bilingual environment, the speech of Georgians living in the highland villages of Tao (Khevai, Kvabai, Balkhi) has to some extent preserved essential features of the Georgian language. In this regard, the vocabulary is of particular interest. The research draws upon dialectal texts (audio and video materials) recorded in situ from local Georgian speakers during dialectological expeditions conducted between 2006 and 2025 in Tao, particularly in the Georgian villages of the Parkhlistskali Valley. The Tao data have been compared with materials from the Georgian literary language and other Georgian dialects, and the resulting correspondences and divergences have been presented. The figurative phraseological units, proverbs, admonitory sayings, and fixed expressions attested in the Tao dialect are predominantly common Georgian in origin; they are also found in the Georgian literary language and in other dialects. Certain units, however, display structural or semantic variation in Tao usage. Some of the phraseological units appear to be specific to Tao speech, either as authentically dialectal constructions or contact-induced developments shaped by Turkish linguistic influence. The analyzed lexical material is important for the study of the language, history, and culture of the Georgians of Tao. It reflects important aspects of the linguistic and ethnic identity of Tao’s indigenous Georgian population, along with Tao’s historical developments and contemporary socio-cultural dynamics. The presence of Turkish influence is observable in certain expressions, where Georgian words have been replaced by Turkish forms. Such constructions reflect the current linguistic situation in Tao and show the ongoing process of Georgian-Turkish linguistic and cultural interference.
Turkish Realities in Iona Gedevanishvili's Travel Narrative Mimosula (A Journey)
Iona Gedevanishvili began his journey to the Eastern countries from Tbilisi. The traveler recorded his impressions and subsequently compiled them into his book entitled Mimosula (A Journey). Once he crossed Georgia’s borders, the traveler immediately entered Ottoman lands, as the Pashalik of Akhaltsikhe had long been a direct neighbor of our country. Although many Georgians had previously traveled to Ottoman territories, whether by choice or circumstance, the detailed descriptions and representations of Turkish realities found in Iona Gedevanishvili’s Mimosula have a distinct purpose and significance. The book offers a unique perspective on Georgia’s neighbor, which had firmly established its presence on the lands of ancient Greece. Departing from Tbilisi, the traveler reached Surami. From there, he joined a caravan and entered the Atabag’s land, arriving in the city of Akhaltsikhe. Remarkably, the Georgian traveler was received kindly wherever he arrived. He was accommodated in a cell of the Church of Saint Marina, which served as lodging for visiting Greek high priests. After that, at the Atabag’s command, Iona was honorably accompanied with a caravan of merchants to Constantinople. Iona carefully recounts the details of the journey and, once in Constantinople, presents a detailed depiction of the city’s life and atmosphere. Along the road to Constantinople, Jonah's geographical reflections are of considerable interest. He saw the source of the Chorokhi River and compared its size to that of the Mtkvari. Numerous forests and rivers encountered on the journey were described through comparison with the rivers of Kartli. He considers the Chorokhi as being as large as the Mtkvari and a river in the Goli Valley as comparable to Ksani. He further depicts the surrounding villages and woodlands, and turns to a descriprion of the Bosphorus and, especially, the city of Constantinople, where he had an audience with the Sultan. Scholars have suggested that Iona's triumphant reception at the Sultan's court was the result of the protection afforded to him through a credential issued in his name by the Russian Emperor.
Identity in Georgian and Turkish Postmodernist Novels: Aka Morchiladze’s Your Adventure and Elif Shafak’s The Bastard of Istanbul
The pursuit of identity is one of the defining concerns of postmodern novels. Identity is constructed through the internalization and acceptance of social consciousness, aesthetic preferences, habitual practices, norms, and value systems. Identification with a specific cultural sphere provides coherence and intelligibility to individual existence. Globalization, encompassing countries with diverse cultural systems and different levels of development, stimulates intercultural interaction while simultaneously producing identity-related challenges. Within the cultural domain, globalization exhibits a strong tendency toward the unification of local formations, through the dissemination of common values, norms, and ideals. This process may generate plural identities, wherein local cultural forms are partially incorporated into a global framework. In postmodern literature, unlike modernist texts — where protagonists search for and ultimately discover their roots, thereby resolving their journey of self-discovery — identity remains indeterminate, ambiguous, and non-homogeneous, as space and environment continuously reshape and reconstruct it; thus, the search becomes an ongoing process, and who we truly are depends on the perspective from which we view the world and unfolding events. The present study aims to demonstrate how the issue of identity is articulated in Georgian and Turkish postmodern novels, which problems are highlighted, and how authors from different cultural settings propose to address them. The analysis is based on Aka Morchiladze’s Your Adventure and Elif Shafak’s The Bastard of Istanbul. These postmodern literary works may be regarded as powerful reflections of identity-related complexities, proposing distinct ways toward their resolution.
Georgia’s Historical Hardships as Reflected in Toponyms
This paper examines Giorgi Zedginidze’s important historical narrative, The Mother’s Cathedral, through a historical-onomastic method. Giorgi Zedginidze, a native of Samtskhe–Javakheti, depicts in his work the turbulent and tragic period in the history of that region. The narrative extends beyond Samtskhe–Javakheti to encompass historical southern Georgia, specifically territories corresponding to modern-day Turkey. The work depicts the seventeenth-century Ottoman annexation of Georgian lands, with particular emphasis on the conquest and devastation of Shavsheti. The narrative reflects a historical phase during which south-western Georgia endured severe subjugation under Ottoman rule, initiated in the sixteenth century, gradually encompassing the entirety of western Georgia. These efforts proved successful — Georgia was deprived of a territory that, in the ninth and tenth centuries, had served as the political, cultural, and ecclesiastical center of the country. As Professor Revaz Siradze characterizes it, this region constituted a “Second Kartli.” In the seventeenth century, historical south-western Georgia continued to preserve its Georgian place names, or toponyms, which I have characterized metaphorically as a symbolic form of “identity.” A pertinent analogy may be drawn with the removal, during the 1990s, of the explicit identification of nationality from identity documents – while it remained evident to us that the surname recorded therein was Georgian – so too the explicit marking of Georgian origin gradually faded from certain “conquered toponyms”. Yet, despite formal transformation, the Georgian lexical base could still be discerned. Scholarly investigation, however, overlooks neither the linguistic nor the historical dimensions of this phenomenon. As late as the seventeenth century, Georgian toponyms still clearly preserved the national identity of Georgian land, standing as silent guardians over it. Several of the Georgian villages identified by the toponyms attested in the narrative have long since become abandoned settlements, yet the toponyms themselves remain as enduring linguistic testimonies to their historical existence. This study will first examine the toponyms of Samtskhe-Javakheti attested in the narrative and then proceed to those of historical south-western Georgia in the seventeenth century, thereby reconstructing the toponymic configuration of three centuries prior. The analysis draws on the emotionally charged, thematically poignant, and toponym-rich passages of Zedginidze’s prose, revealing the intertwining of geography, memory, and identity. Amid the harsh realities of conquest and warfare, one passage in the narrative stands out: although the conqueror is portrayed as ruthless, G. Zedginidze’s work includes a scene depicting the humane interaction between a wounded Turkish soldier and a Georgian man. Such episodes suggest that, over time, human compassion helped transform relations between Georgians and Turks, fostering goodwill and friendship.
Magical Objects, Birds, and Animals in Georgian-Turkish Folktales
Within the oral creative traditions of various peoples, the fairy tale — particularly the magic tale — occupies a significant position, functioning as a mechanism of “psychological release” for collective creative energy and as an authentic articulation of a people’s foundational worldview. The magic tale has its own structural features and conventionally incorporates diverse magical agents, including enchanted objects, birds, and animals. Over the course of centuries, Georgian-Turkish relations were conditioned by wars of conquest and cultural coexistence, circumstances that shaped similar narrative motifs in the folklore of both peoples. Turkish folklore, much like broader Eastern cultural traditions, drew substantively upon Arabic oral storytelling. Over time, it developed into distinct narrative forms, including the so-called "old woman’s tales" and the performative narratives of the wandering storyteller (meddah). The former circulated primarily among the lower social strata, yet meddahs often borrowed their storyline from "old woman’s tales". The spread and influence of these storylines extended to Georgia as well, where the fairy-tale epic corpus is primarily attested in the published compilations of folklore collectors from the second half of the nineteenth century onward. This article aims to explore the similarities, differences, and narrative functions of magical objects, birds, and animals featured in Georgian and Turkish fairy tales. This analysis contributes to the broader investigation of an important issue in folklore studies.
The Functioning of the Abkhazian Language among the Descendants of Abkhaz Muhajirs in Turkey and Georgia
The Abkhazians currently residing primarily in Turkey and in Georgia (particularly in Adjara), are descendants of Abkhaz muhajirs who were forcibly displaced by the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century. The impact of forced deportation of peoples on language functioning is one of the most challenging and complex issues in sociolinguistics. During deportation, communities are compelled to undergo radical transformations of their social, cultural, and linguistic environments. Under such conditions, children and subsequent generations frequently fail to acquire the ancestral language. Communication within the family shifts toward the host language, thereby interrupting the natural transmission of language across generations. This process is further intensified by the decline in the prestige of the Abkhaz language, which ceases to be perceived as an instrument of social or economic advancement, leading to its replacement by dominant and more prestigious languages. As a result, not only does the functional scope of the language narrow, but the preservation of ethnic identity is also threatened, since language is one of its central components. Today, the Abkhazian language faces significant challenges both in Abkhazia and among muhajir descendant communities, particularly in the Republic of Turkey. The issues of language functioning are related to political, social, and demographic factors, which determine its prospects for linguistic preservation or assimilation. The functioning of the Abkhazian language is confronted with considerable threats in Georgia (especially in Adjara) and Turkey arising from various socio-political and linguistic factors. Processes of language assimilation under the influence of Georgian, Turkish and Russian hinder the natural development of the Abkhazian language. Within the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, ongoing Russification; in Georgian-controlled territories (notably Batumi and its surrounding region), the predominance of Georgian; and in the Republic of Turkey, systematic Turkification processes collectively weaken the functional vitality of the Abkhazian language. The Abkhazian language is included on UNESCO’s list of endangered languages.
On Dialectal Vocabulary in the Speech of the Descendants of Muhajir Georgians – I
The descendants of Georgian muhajirs in Turkey represent a bilingual ethnic group, compactly settled across three major regions of the country - the Central Black Sea coast (from Giresun to Sinop), the South-Western Black Sea region (Düzce and Sakarya provinces), and the Marmara coastal zone (predominantly within Bursa Province). Their present-day Kartvelian speech reflects a continuation of the Adjarian dialect and the Chkhalian variety of the Khopa dialect. Since the late nineteenth century, these speech forms have developed in relative isolation from the literary Georgian language and other Kartvelian dialects, while continuing to reflect the influence of Turkish. Naturally, within the lexical inventory of the Adjarian dialect preserved in the speech of the muhajir descendants, archaic lexical units are retained, either in unchanged or modified forms. The present article focuses on this lexical layer, specifically, on terms denoting value, or more precisely, money: marčili – (“metal currency”) and naari – (“paper currency”). The Laz forms Geareli//Genareri (in the sense of “money”) provide compelling evidence that Naar derives from a Megrelian-Laz lexical base, containing the root ar- (“to write”), which is identifiable and semantically congruent with the referent (Na- ar-a „written“, Ge arili/Ge areli „ inscribed, engraved“). Notably, the inscriptions impressed upon coinage — the “legend” — were referred to in Georgian literary tradition as zeda erili (“that which is written above”). The lexical unit našali, linked to the root šal-, dašla (“to divide, to separate”), is also analyzed. In the speech of the muhajir descendants, sesxi/sesxoba is used only to denote a month. Nevertheless, we still discussed it, because the broader Kartvelian semantic field of the root also encompasses the meaning of money temporarily lent. The main lexical corpus of the speech of Georgian muhajir descendants has been largely preserved. Naturally, part of the vocabulary is composed of loanwords; nevertheless, an enduring connection with the broader Common Kartvelian linguistic continuum has not been disrupted to this day.
Chronological List of the Bishops of Atskuri
The Atskuri Diocese is one of the oldest episcopal cathedrae within the jurisdiction of the Georgian Orthodox Church (specifically within the Kartli (Mtskheta) Catholicosate). In medieval times, the honor associated with the Atskuri Cathedra was reflected in both the rank and title of its ruling bishop within the hierarchy of the Georgian (Kartlian) Church. The Matskvereli hierarch initially functioned in the capacity of bishop and was subsequently elevated to archiepiscopal rank. The honor and position of the Matskvereli hierarch among Georgian hierarchs are attested across multiple sources. According to K’urtkheva Mironisa (“The Blessing of the Chrism”), specific bishops, together with the Catholicos, were assigned honorary roles in the ritual of Chrism preparation: first the Metropolitan of Greater Armenia is mentioned, followed by the Archbishop of Kartli, and thereafter the Matskvereli. According to the Gangeba Darbazobisa (“Rules of “Session of the Royal Council”), Maksvereli is ranked third among the hierarchs under the Kartli Catholicosate, after the Metropolitan of Greater Armenia and the Archbishop of Kartli. The political aspirations of the Atabags of Samtskhe toward autonomy was mirrored in the church governance as well. Following the fragmentation of Georgia into separate royal and princely polities, the Matskvereli hierarch became an especially influential figure. Atskuri episcopal see became the principal ecclesiastical pillar of Atabag's policy of church autonomy. A document from the first half of the sixteenth century, listing the bishops of Samtskhe-Saatabago, attests that the Matskvereli diocese covered a notably extensive territory. Moreover, among the thirteen Meskhetian hierarchs, the Matsqvereli occupied primacy and uniquely held the privilege of wearing the mitre (crown) and the bisoni (sakkos). From this period onward, the hierarch bore the distinguished title “Chief Hierarch-Archbishop”. Following the Ottoman conquest of Samtskhe-Saatabago, the Matsqvereli bishops were confirmed in office by the Ottoman Sultan. By the eighteenth century, the Atskuri episcopal see appears to have been effectively dismantled. Regrettably, no reliable and definitive source has been preserved that would allow the precise dating of the foundation of the Atskuri Episcopal cathedra. It may be assumed that the diocese emerged around the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries. Due to the scarcity of sources, the chronological succession of the hierarchs of the Atskuri Diocese remains incomplete. The present study is an attempt, within the limits imposed by extant sources, to reconstruct the list of the ruling bishops of the Atskuri diocese from its foundation until its abolition. Based on the available sources, the chronological sequence of the Matskvereli hierarchs compiled by Valery Silogava and Nikoloz Gurgenidze has been critically reassessed and supplemented. The dates of service and chronology of several Matskvereli hierarchs have been refined and specified, and the bishop previously misidentified as Gabriel has been corrected to Gedeon. Three additional bishops have been incorporated into the list, raising the total number of presently known Matskvereli hierarchs to twenty-eight.
Morphological and Syntactic Phenomena in Inner and South-Western Dialects of the Georgian Language
This article examines a number of common morphological and morphosyntactic phenomena attested in the inner dialects of Georgian as well as in the south-western dialectal forms spoken beyond the borders of Georgia: a) The modal particle unda (უნდა) [unda - expressing necessity, obligation, or intention] and its associated verbal morphology display notable variation across both eastern Georgian dialects (Khevsurian, Pshavian, and Khevian (i.e. Mokhevian or Mokheuri: (უნდ-ან-ან-თ [und-an-an-t], უნდ-ან-ან [und-an-an]) and western dialects (Lower Imeretian, Gurian, and Adjarian (უნდ-ენ [und-en], უნდ-ებ-ლარიენ [und-eb-larien]). Similar developments are found in the south-western ones — specifically Klarjian, Shavshian, and Tao dialects, where forms such as უნდ-ან-ან [und-an-an] and უნდ-ა-რ-ან [und-a-r-an] occur. Among the sub-dialects or idioms spoken by communities that migrated into a linguistically diverse dialectal environment of Lower Imereti, the Adigeni Meskhetians preserve the form უნდ-ან-ან [und-an-an]. In Lower Imeretian, innovative forms such as უნდ-ავ-ენ [und-av-en] and უნდ-ავ-ი-ენ [und-av-i-en] have emerged, in which -ავ [-av] appears to alternate with the Old Georgian thematic marker -ან [-an], later combined with the plural marker -ენ [-en] — უნდ-ან [und-an]/უნდ-ავ-ენ [und-av-en]. Alternative views concerning the origin of these forms have been proposed. b) The verb ი-სვრ-ი-ს (i-svr-i-s, “throwing/shooting”) occurs in various forms across Georgian dialects. In the Pshavian dialect, it appears with the vowel prefix ა [a-]: ასვრის (asvris), ლეკები ასვრიან თოფებსა (cf. A. Shanidze: lekebi asvrian topebsa, “the Leks fire their rifles”). In the Lower Imeretian dialectal area, the form სროულობს [sroulobs], brought by migrated Lechkhumians, denotes a repeated 8 action, whereas სროლავს [srolavs] in Lower Imeretian sub-dialect expresses a single-occurrence action. These semantic distinctions are reflected in morphosyntax as well: ისვრის ის [isvris is – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting], ისვრის ის მას [isvris is mas – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting it], სროლავს ის [srolavs is – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting], სროლავს ის მას [srolavs is mas – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting it], ასვრის ის მას [asvris is mas – meaning: he/she is throwing/shooting it]. A theoretically expected construction would be ასვრის ის მას მას [asvris is mas mas, meaning “he/she is throwing/shooting it at him/her”], where the prefix ა- [a-] would serve as a functional equivalent of the vowel prefix ე- [e-]: ესვრის ის მას მას [esvris is mas mas]/ ასვრის ის მას მას [asvris is mas mas, both meaning “he/she is throwing/shooting it at him/her”]. In our view, the structural template seems closest to არტყამს [artqams], “he/she hits/strikes”, a verb related to throwing, shooting, hitting, and striking]; e.g., არტყამს ის მას ტყვიას [artqams is mas tkvias, meaning “he/she strikes him/her with a bullet”]), though we have not encountered the verb ა-სვრის [a-svris] in the form of a three-argument verb (or a ditransitive verb). In the Imeretian dialect (specifically in the Vani variety), a form with the უ- [u-] prefix is attested: უსროდა ქვეფს და ებძოდა უბედურათ (usroda kveps da ebzoda ubedurat, “He threw stones and fought relentlessly”) (N. Sharashidze). The dialect also preserves an unprefixed variant, სვრის (svris, “he/she is shooting”) (B. Jorbenadze), with the plural form სვრი-ან [svri-an, “they are shooting”). The addition or loss of vowel prefixes correlates with the syntactic valency — or positional structure — of verbs. In the Klarjian dialect, the form მსვრელი [msvreli, “one who shoots, shooter”) is attested. Examples include კარქა ვსვრი მაუზერ [Kark’a vsvri mauzer, “I shoot Mausers well”] (the Klaskuri idiom) and ვსრი (vsri), which is likewise encountered in the Machakhlian: e.g., ბაბამ ლივერი მიყიდა, ვსრი და ვსრი [Babam liveri miq’ida, vsri da vsri, “My father bought me a gun, I shoot and shoot”] (the Kedkedi idiom) (Paghava et al.), cf. Imeretian სვრის [svris], where — unlike the Machakhlian dialect — the Old Georgian verbal root სრ-ევ-ა [sr-ev-a] has not been preserved. However, both Klarjian and Imeretian dialects share the form მ-სვრ-ელ-ი [m-svr-el-i, “the one who is throwing/shooting”]. The insertion of the consonant ვ [v] into the root appears unexpected, as the anticipated root would be -სრ- [-sr-]. Across different linguistic environments, factors inherited from Old Georgian or Common Kartvelian continue to function in various areas, representing the outcomes of diachronic processes that have unfolded over extended periods of time. c) In the speech of Muhajir communities, an alternation between nominative and quasi-ergative constructions is attested, where the ergative case assumes the function in expressing definiteness/indefiniteness. This feature does not appear elsewhere across the Georgian dialectal continuum. For instance, კაცი გეიარა [k’atsi geiara] indicates that an unfamiliar man passed by, whereas კაცმა გეიარა [k’atsma geiara] refers to a definite referent previously mentioned in discourse (Putkaradze et al., 2022). This development cannot be explained by the influence of Turkish, a non-ergative language; rather, it may have closer parallels with the function of an Old Georgian particle that marked the noun as definite. It is generally recognized that the linguistic consciousness of populations subjected to forced displacement into foreign environments differs from that of voluntary migrants. In this context, speakers appear to have drawn upon the morphological inventory of their native language to convey familiarity, definiteness, and specificity, thereby forming a corresponding morphosyntactic construction serving this function.
Valuable information concerning the history of the Laz of Anaklia can be found in the manuscript collection of the Historical-Architectural Museum of the Dadiani Palaces, preserved as handwritten documents. These sources allow researchers to discuss chronological framework and living conditions under which Laz communities lived in Anaklia. Anaklia, located in the Zugdidi region of western Georgia, is a historically significant site. Traces of habitation dating to the second millennium BCE are confirmed by artifacts preserved in the Dadiani Palace, widely known as "Dikha Gudzuba". Across western Georgia, Anaklia emerged as one of the most significant strategic locations during the period of Greek expansion along the Black Sea coast in the seventh–eighth centuries. From the eighteenth century onward, foreign travelers and explorers described Anaklia as a powerful episcopal center and trading port. After the construction of a large fortress bearing the same name — the remains of which are still extant along the coastal zone — Anaklia came to be referred to as a trading city. In Anaklia, as trade intensified — particularly during the spring and autumn seasons — sailing ships regularly arrived from Constantinople, Iran, Trebizond, and Gonio. For merchant ships entering Samegrelo, Anaklia became the most accessible and important harbor in the entire region. From here, goods such as flax thread, linen cloth, flaxseed, oxhide, reeds, boxwood, precious furs, honey, and wax were shipped across the Black Sea to Ottoman territories in the autumn,whereas in the spring merchants brought into Samegrelo luxury tableware, iron goods, weaponry, and salt. The trading port of Anaklia preserved its commercial significance well into the early twentieth century. In the early twentieth century, trade and fishing remained the primary occupations of the Laz population in Anaklia. When the Bolsheviks closed the borders with Turkey, the Anaklian Laz were given the choice either to remain or to relocate to Turkey; those who chose to stay were prohibited from crossing the border and contact with relatives was severed. Only a few Laz families remained in Anaklia, and today they no longer speak the Laz language. After 1921, approximately fifteen Laz surnames were documented in Anaklia: Abdul-oghli, Odabash-oghli, Ai-oghli, Reiz-oghli, Sokt-oghli, Oksus-oghli, Kvakul-oghli, Kelek-oghli, Sufal-oghli, Fat-oghli, Tikan-oghli, Abdul-oghli, Mola-oghli, Machakhel-oghli, Aghazade. Under the prevailing regime, some Laz were compelled to change their surnames. Those who remained in Georgia continued their lives alongside other Georgian communities.
Healing Incantations in the Folklore of Tao-Klarjeti
One of the archaic genres of Georgian folk oral tradition — the incantation (shelotsva) — remained in active folkloric use until relatively recently within the collective memory of Georgian communities residing in historical Tao-Klarjeti. This remarkable layer of Georgian magical poetry remains well preserved in their cultural consciousness. The incantations widespread in historical Tao-Klarjeti constitute valuable variants of those known throughout other regions of Georgia and display notable affinity with Adjara corpus. Rooted in the belief in the magical power of the spoken word, this popular genre is frequently referred to by locals as dua, a Turkish term meaning “prayer.” In Georgian folkloric usage as well, the term shelotsva (“incantation”) often alternates with the word lotsva (“prayer”). Our ancestors believed that supernatural connections existed between objects and phenomena. According to their worldview, any entity or occurrence could function as a potential source of beneficent or malevolent force. To influence such forces, ritual intervention was required. Verbal formulas were accompanied by specific ceremonial actions aimed at subduing the invisible forces of nature, culminating in the formation of the incantation — a form that reflects humanity’s ancient aspiration to overcome obstacles and attain desired goals. For every illness, our ancestors created a distinct incantation, believing that magical words possessed healing power. Among the population of Tao-Klarjeti, various healing charms were widely practiced against the evil eye (gatvalva), fright, abdominal pain, tia i.e. hernia, worms, headaches, ringworm, warts, sprains, ocular pain, and “evil winds,” among others. These incantations were intended not only for humans but also for domestic animals and poultry. The study of incantations preserved in the oral tradition of the descendants of Georgians living in the villages of historical Tao-Klarjeti demonstrates that this folkloric phenomenon constitutes an organic part of common Kartvelian oral tradition.