7 Civilizacia

ivane javaxiSvilis sax.
Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti

Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
kulturis mecnierebaTa instituti
interkulturuli dialogis iuneskos kaTedra
Institute of Cultural Studies
UNESCO Chair in Intercultural Dialogue
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization
UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs - Twinning networks and

university networks
civilizaciuri Ziebani
CIVILIZATION RESEARCHES
# 7
`civilizaciuri Ziebani~ Tbilisis saxelmwifo universitetSi gamodis 2003 wlidan. 2007
wlis ivnisSi iuneskos egidiT Catarebuli saerTaSoriso mrgvali magidis _ `kavkasia: inter-
kulturuli dialogis perspeqtiva~ _ gadawyvetilebiT, is arsebobas ganagrZobs rogorc sa-
erTaSoriso gamocema. krebuli interdisciplinuria, moicavs kroskulturuli komunikaciisa
da interkulturuli dialogis, SedarebiTi regionuli kvlevebis (istoriuli da tipologi-
uri sakiTxebi), kulturis kvlevebis da sxva sakiTxebs.
krebuli TanamSromlobs azerbaijanis, somxeTis, moldovas, ruseTis federaciis, cen-
traluri aziis iuneskos kaTedrebTan, sxva qarTvel da ucxoel kolegebTan, romlebic war-
modgenilni arian rogorc saredaqcio sabWoSi, aseve avtorebis saxiT.
saredaqcio jgufi mzadaa TanamSromlobisaTvis dainteresebul pirebTan da struqtureb-
Tan.
“Civilization Researches” is an annual edition of the UNESCO Chair in Intercultural Dialogue, Ivane Javakhishvili
Tbilisi State University.
The articles cover spheres including, but not restricted to:
Cross-cultural communication and intercultural dialogue
Comparative regional studies (including historical and typological perspectives)
Cultural studies.
Traditional and non-traditional paradigms of study are equally welcome.
The journal cooperates with the UNESCO Chairs in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Central Asia, Russian Federa-
tion and is open for collaboration with the interested individuals and structures.
moTxovnebi avtorebisadmi
masalebi warmodgenil unda iqnes qarTulad, inglisurad, rusulad an frangulad (maq-
simum 4.000 sityva. Times New Roman 12, 1,5, an 2.500 sityva; AcadNusx 12, 1,5 (qarTuli teqstebi).
yvela statias (garda inglisur enaze warmodgenilisa) unda axldes inglisuri reziume 800-
1000 sityvis moculobiT. citireba – MLA stili.
SerCevis pirveli etapi – saredaqcio sabWos wevrTa mier SerCeuli statiebi igzavneba
TbilisSi, redaqciaSi, eleqtronuli fostiT.
meore etapi – statiebi egzavneba saredaqcio sabWos wevrebs (specialobaTa mixedviT) sa-
boloo SerCevisaTvis.
warmodgenis vadebi:
1 oqtomberi – warmodgena saredaqcio sabWoSi
1 noemberi – saredaqcio sabWos wevrTa saboloo gadawyvetileba
Submission
The articles should be submitted in Georgian, English, Russian or French (max. 4000 words, Times New Roman 12,
1,5, or 2500 words, AcadNusx 12, 1,5 space (Georgian texts). All articles (except those in English) must be presented to-
gether with the summary in English, 800-1000 words. Citation – MLA style.
First stage of selection – papers recommended by the members of the Editorial Board should be delivered to Tbilisi
by e-mail.
Second stage – the papers should be distributed among the members of the Editorial Board for the final selection.
Deadline for delivering articles to Tbilisi:
October (with the recommendation of a member of the Review Group)
November (decision of the member of the Review Group to whom the article was delivered).
© Tbilisis universitetis gamomcemloba, 2009

Tbilisi University Press, 2009
ISBN
© interkulturuli dialogis iuneskos kaTedra, 2009
UNESCO Chair in Intercultural Dialogue, 2009
ISSN 1512-1941
saredaqcio sabWo
nino Ciqovani, profesori kulturis kvlevebi, iv. javaxiSvilis saxelobis

(saredaqcio sabWos Tavmjdomare) Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti, saqarTvelo
mixeil borgolte, profesori Sua saukuneebis evropis SedarebiTi istoria,
berlinis humboldtis universiteti, germania
emil dragnevi, profesori samxreT-aRmosavleT evropis kvlevebi,
moldovas saxelmwifo universiteti, moldova
mavjuda iuldaSeva, profesori fsiqologiur-pedagogiuri da kulturis
kvlevebi, rusul-tajikuri slavuri universiteti,
duSanbe, tajikeTi
malxaz macaberiZe, profesori politikis mecnierebebi, iv. javaxiSvilis
saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti,
saqarTvelo
dimitri spivaki, profesori sulieri tradiciebis, specifikuri kulturebisa
da interreligiuri dialogis SedarebiTi kvleva,
kulturis kvlevaTa ruseTis instituti, sankt-
peterburgi, ruseTis federacia
nino fircxalava, profesori SedarebiTi literaturuli kvlevebi, ilia Wa-
vWavaZis saxelmwifo universiteti, saqarTvelo
TinaTin RuduSauri, kulturis anTropologia, humanitaruli skola,
asoc. profesori saqarTvelos universiteti, saqarTvelo
bernd Spilneri, profesori enaTmecniereba, duisburg-esenis universiteti,
germania
beJan javaxia, profesori Sua saukuneebis istoria, iv. javaxiSvilis
saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti,
saqarTvelo
zarui hakobiani, somxuri xelovnebis istoria da Teoria, erevnis
asist. profesori saxelmwifo universiteti, somxeTi
rauf huseinovi, istoria, azerbaijanis mecnierebaTa akademiis
profesori arqeologiisa da eTnografiis instituti,
azerbaijani
saredaqcio jgufi: malxaz Toria

qeTevan kakitelaSvili
maia qvriviSvili
irakli CxaiZe
ivane wereTeli
SoTa xinCagaSvili
redaqciis misamarTi
saqarTvelo, 0128, Tbilisi, i. WavWavaZis gamz., #3
iv. javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti,
II korpusi, oTaxi 132
tel.: (995 32) 29 08 44
el. fosta: [email protected], [email protected]
Jurnalis internetversia da sxva informacia interkulturuli dialogis iuneskos

kaTedris Sesaxeb ix. vebgverdze: www.culturedialogue.com
3
EDITORIAL BOARD
Nino Chikovani, Cultural Studies, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Geor-

Professor (Head of the Editorial Board) gia
Michael Borgolte, Professor Comparative History of Medieval Europe, Humboldt University,
Berlin, Germany
Emil Dragnev, Professor South East European Studies, Moldova State University,
Moldova
Tinatin Ghudushauri, Professor Cultural Anthropology, School of Humanities, University of
Georgia
Zaruhi Hakobyan, Assistant Professor History and Theory of Armenian Art, Yerevan StateUniversity,
Armenia
Rauf Huseynov, Professor History, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan
Bejan Javakhia, Professor Medieval Studies, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,
Georgia
Malkhaz Matsaberidze, Professor Political Sciences, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,
Georgia
Nino Pirtskhalava, Professor Comparative Literary Studies, Ilia Chavchavadze State Univer-
sity, Tbilisi, Georgia
Dimitri Spivak, Professor Comparative Studies of Spiritual Traditions, their Specific Cul-
tures and Interreligious Dialogue, Russian Institute for Cultural
Studies, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Bernd Spillner Linguistics, Duisburg-Essen University Germany
Mavzhuda Yuldasheva, Professor Pcycology-pedagogical Disciplines and Cultural Studies, Rus-
sian-Tajik Slavonic University, Dushanbe, Tajikistan
EDITORIAL GROUP: Irakli Chkhaidze

Ketevan Kakitelashvili
Shota Khinchagashvili
Maia Kvrivishvili
Malkhaz Toria
Ivane Tsereteli
ADDRESS OF EDITORIAL OFFICE
UNESCO Chair in Intercultural Dialogue, Tbilisi State University

3, Ilia Chavchavadze Ave. 0128, Tbilisi, Georgia.
E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]
The electronic version of the journal and the information about the UNESCO Chair in Intercultural Dialogue is
available at: www.culturedialogue.com
4
Sinaarsi
CONTENTS
malxaz macaberiZe
saqarTvelos 1921 wlis konstituciis SemuSaveba da erovnul
umciresobaTa konstituciuri uflebebi ............................................................................................ 7
Malkhaz Matsaberidze
Elaboration of the 1921 Constitution of Georgia and Constitutional Rights
of the National Minorities ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Instrumentalization of History and History Teaching in Post-Soviet Georgia ...................................................... 24
Hripsime Ramazyan, Sona Avetisyan
The Globalizing World: A Diagram of New Identities .......................................................................................... 29
Заур Гасымов
Польский прометеизм как предмет исследования. Историографические заметки......................................... 34
maia qvriviSvili
identifikaciis procesebi da markerebi eri-saxelmwifoebis Camoyalibebis
xanaSi (saqarTvelo da rumineTi: SedarebiTi analizis cda) ..................................................... 38
Maia Kvrivishvili
Processes and Markers of Identification in the Era of Formation of Nation-States:
A Comparative Analysis of Georgia and Romania ................................................................................................ 43
David Matsaberidze
The Soviet Identity – Transnationalism and Ethnic Nationalisms in the Soviet Union ......................................... 44
Сергей Румянцев
Диаспора, как политический проект:Практики и цели конструирования
этно-национального сообщества ....................................................................................................................... 53
Sergei Rumyantsev
Diaspora as a political project: Practices and purposes of construction
of ethno-national community ................................................................................................................................. 60
Irakli Chkhaidze
Georgian National Project in the Context of Ethnic and Civic Nationalisms
(THE Beginning of the Post-Soviet Period) ......................................................................................................... 62
Hripsime Ramazyan
Tradition Dismantling: A post-totalitarian society in the shadows of westernization ........................................... 65
marina andrazaSvili
specifikuri sirTuleebi germanulenovan geografiul saxelTa gadmotanisas
qarTulad da arsebuli uzustobani .................................................................................................... 71
Marina Andrazashvili
Specific Difficulties at the Time of Transposition of German Geographical Names into Georgian
and THE Existing Inaccuracies .............................................................................................................................. 84
nino daraselia
d. uznaZis ganwyobis Teoria kognitologiis WrilSi ................................................................ 85
Nino Daraselia
Dimitri Uznadze’s Psychological Theory of Set from the Standpoint of Cognitive Science ................................. 89
5
nino qimeriZe
teqstis saxeoba – kulturiT ganpirobebuli enobrivi warmonaqmni
(germanuli da qarTuli teqstis saxeobaTa analizis safuZvelze) ..................................... 91
Nino Kimeridze
Text Types – Culture-Specific Linguistic Phenomenon(based on the analysis
of German and Georgian text types) .................................................................................................................... 101
Targmanebi
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris moTxrobis interpretacia jon beinsis mier ...................... 102
avtorebi ........................................................................................................................................................... 121
AUTHORS ............................................................................................................................................................. 122
6
malxaz macaberiZe
saqarTvelos 1921 wlis konstituciis SemuSaveba da

erovnul umciresobaTa konstituciuri uflebebi
1918 wlis 26 maiss saqarTvelom gaakeTa istoriuli arCevani – aeSenebina damou-

kidebeli da demokratiuli saxelmwifo. miuxedavad damoukideblobis xanmokle pe-
riodisa, qarTvelma xalxma SeZlo gamoevlina erovnul-saxelmwifoebrivi aRmSeneb-
lobis udidesi energia. 1921 wlis konstitucia damoukidebeli saqarTvelos demok-
ratiuli saxelmwifoebrivi wyobilebis Seqmnis unikalur gamocdilebas warmoad-
gens. masSi aisaxa imdroindeli saxelmwifoebrivi cxovrebis praqtika, agreTve epo-
qis miswrafebebi da Sexedulebebi. ori umTavresi principi _ erisa da pirovnebis
Tavisufleba safuZvlad daedo saqarTvelos pirvel konstitucias. es dokumenti
pirveli msoflio omis Semdgomi periodis `konstituciur talRaSi~ Sedis (germania
1919, avstria 1920, fineTi 1921 da a.S.) da Tavisi individualurobiT, iseve rogorc
Tanmimdevruli demokratizmiT, sapatio adgili ukavia msoflio konstitucionaliz-
mis istoriaSi.
saqarTvelos 1921 wlis konstituciis SemuSavebis dros erT-erT umniSvnelova-
nes amocanad miCneul iqna erovnul umciresobaTa konstituciuri uflebebisa da
garantiebis Camoyalibeba. saqarTvelos damfuZnebeli krebis sakonstitucio komisi-
is masalebi TvalsaCinod gviCveneben, Tu ra didi yuradReba daeTmo konstituciis
SemuSavebisas `respublikis mcire erebis uflebaTa~ gansazRvras.
1. sxvebisTvis sanimuSod
saqarTvelos 1921 wlis konstituciis fuZemdeblebi miiswrafodnen SeeqmnaT uaR-
resad demokratiuli konstitucia, romelic sxva qveynebisaTvis sanimuSo da misaba-
Zi iqneboda. aseTi suliskveTebiT wyvetdnen erovnul sakiTxsac. ase magaliTad, sa-
konstitucio komisiis 1920 wlis 26 Tebervlis sxdomaze a. Cxenkeli aRniSnavda: `Cven
veravis mivbaZavT, versaidan gadmoviRebT rasme, radgan ar aris istoriaSi saTana-
do, Cveni damakmayofilebeli magaliTebi; es kiTxva unda gadavWraT Cveni gonebiT
imdenad safuZvlianad, rom sxvisTvis gaxdes samagaliTod~ (scssa1, f. 1833, aRw. 1,
saq. 181, furc. 126).
aseTi ganwyoba kargad aitaces erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebmac. Ta-
visTavad igulisxmeboda, rom Camoyalibebis etapze myof saqarTvelos saxelmwifo-
Si erovnul umciresobebs unda mieRoT iseTi uflebebi da konstituciuri garanti-
ebi, rac ar iyo ganxorcielebuli dasavleTis yvelaze demokratiul saxelmwifoeb-
Sic ki. magaliTad, sakonstitucio komisiis 1920 wlis 10 martis sxdomaze, rodesac
komisiis Tavmjdomarem, p. sayvareliZem rusebis erovnuli sabWos warmomadgenels
miuTiTa, rom maT mier wamoyenebuli e.w. ènaTa Tanasworuflebianobis~ moTxovna
arsebiTad uaryofda saxelmwifo enis cnebas, an aseTad aqcevda 15-16 enas, msgavsi
ram ki arc erT qveyanaSi ar arsebobda, pasuxad miiRo Semdegi: `qveyanazed arsad
1
saqarTvelos centraluri saxelmwifo saistorio arqivi.
7
malxaz macaberiZe
aris socialisturi mTavroba, es aris saqarTveloSi da es garemoeba avalebs mTav-

robas zog rames, rac sxva saxelmwifosaTvis uCveuloa da SeuZlebeli~ (scssa, f.
1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 203).
sakonstitucio komisia erT-erT umTavres amocanad mtkice erovnuli saxelmwi-
fos Seqmnas miiCnevda: `dRes Cveni movaleoba aris _ SevqmnaT mTliani, mtkice erov-
nuli organizmi da avicdinoT is mizezebi, romlis gamo sustdeba da irRveva igi~
(scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 177), _ aRniSnavda p. sayvareliZe. cxadi iyo, rom
swored erovnuli saxelmwifos interesebidan gamomdinare unda yofiliyo ganxilu-
li da gadawyvetili erovnul umciresobaTa sakiTxic. amitom SeuZleblad iqna miC-
neuli `saxelmwifoSi axali saxelmwifos, an raime sajaro uflebriv organizaciis
Seqmna~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 178).
erT-erTi amosavali principi iyo agreTve saxelmwifosa da erovnul umcireso-
baTa interesebis mWidro kavSiris aRiareba da maTi harmoniuli Sexamebis cda. am
garemoebas usvamda xazs sakonstitucio komisiis 1920 wlis 26 Tebervlis sxdomaze
a. Cxenkeli: `mWidrod aris dakavSirebuli erTmaneTTan interesebi mTelis _ saxel-
mwifosi da nawilis _ erovnuli umciresobisa: erTis bedniereba meoris bednierebaa
da erTis ubedureba _ ubedurebaa meorisaTvis; ayvaveba saxelmwifosi aris ayvaveba
da gamdidreba umciresobisa. es unda hqondes Segnebuli yovel umciresobas, rom
adgili ar eqnes raime gaugebrobasa da undoblobas; umciresobis ayvaveba Cveni in-
teresic aris da swored sakiTxis aseTi gaSuqebidan gamogvyavs Cven maqsimumi im uf-
lebaTa, romelTac saxelmwifo aZlevs umciresobas~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181,
furc. 127). erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis SesaZleblobis farglebSi uzrunvel-
yofa udides saxelmwifoebriv interesad iyo miCneuli, magram, amave dros, ùmcire-
sobam unda SeiTvisos is azri, rom Cveni respublika maTi respublikaa da rac av-
nebs saxelmwifos, avnebs maTac~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 180).
sakonstitucio komisiis wevrTa nawilis azriT, erovnul umciresobebs uaRre-
sad farTo uflebebi unda miscemodaT, garda sajaro-uflebrivi organizaciebis
Seqmnisa. amasTan dakavSirebiT p. sayvareliZe ganmartavda: `yvelas moexseneba ras
niSnavs aseTi organizacia; mis gankargulebaSi gaxlavT skolisa da gadasaxadebis
sakiTxi; igi iZulebiT krefs gadasaxads, am SemTxvevaSi mas fizikuri Zalis Seqmnis
ufleba surs moipovos; igi sruli kanonmdebelia _ erTi sityviT, saxelmwifoebrivi
funqciebis matarebelia. maSin Cven respublikaSic iqneba 15 sajaro uflebiT Semo-
sili erovnuli sabWo; gveqneba centrali saxelmwifo da kidev 8, 9 saxelmwifo Cven
gverdiT da warmoidgineT is kinklaoba, Cxubi, wiwkna-gleja, romelic aucilebeli
Sedegi iqneba aseTi mdgomareobisa. amitom Cven metad frTxilad unda movepyraT am
sakiTxs~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 177).
p. sayvareliZe miuTiTebda, rom saqarTvelos saxelmwifo uaRresad demokratiu-
li iyo da arsebuli kanonmdeblobiT uzrunvelyofda erovnul umciresobaTa mniS-
vnelovan uflebebsa da garantiebs. kerZod: 1. aRiarebuli da uzrunvelyofili iyo
yvela moqalaqis, ganurCevlad erovnebisa, Tavisufali arseboba da ganviTareba ro-
gorc sarwmunoebis sakiTxSi, ise politikuri da moqalaqeobrivi uflebebis sfero-
Si; 2. arsebobda proporciuli saarCevno sistema, romelic xels uwyobs yovelnair
umciresobas Tavisi uflebebis dacvis saqmeSi; 3. erovnul umciresobaTa enebis uf-
lebebi savsebiT daculi iyo adgilobriv TviTmmarTvelobebsa da sasamarTloSi;
ucxo ena gamoiyeneboda erovnul sabWoSi da parlamentSic. miuxedavad amisa, sakon-
stitucio komisiam saWirod miiCnia erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis calke Tavad
Setana konstituciaSi.
8
saqarTvelos 1921 wlis konstituciis SemuSaveba da erovnul umciresobaTa...
2. erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis Tavdapirveli monaxazi

sakonstitucio komisiis 1919 wlis 29 oqtombris sxdomaze erovnul umciresoba-
Ta sakiTxis damuSaveba miendo s. dadians (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 42). 10
dekembris sxdomaze ki airCies komisia sami kacis SemadgenlobiT _ m. xoWolava, i.
gobeCia da i. baraTaSvili. komisias daevala `SeimuSaos da warmoudginos maxlobel
sxdomas proeqti erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis Sesaxeb~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1,
saq. 181, furc. 54). am jgufidan, arsebiTad, imuSava i. baraTaSvilma, romelmac komi-
sias Semdgom Tavisi proeqti warudgina.
komisiam gadawyvita Tavis sxdomaze moewvia erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgen-
lebi da moesmina maTi azri. amasTan dakavSirebiT sakonstitucio komisiis 1920
wlis 24 ianvris sxdomaze daisva aseTi sakiTxi _ saWiro iyo Tu ara mocemul Tema-
ze winaswar emsjela komisias? gamoikveTa sami Tvalsazrisi: 1) sakiTxi ganexilaT
mxolod erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebTan Sexvedrisa da maTi azris mos-
menis Semdeg (g. gvazava); 2) erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebTan Sexvedramde
komisias ganexila sakiTxi da SeemuSavebina sakuTari pozicia (k. jafariZe); 3) sakiT-
xi Sexvedramde ganexilaT, oRond raime `winaswari azris~ gamotanis gareSe (i. bara-
TaSvili).
saboloo jamSi komisiam mxari dauWira i. baraTaSvilis pozicias da daadgina
`winaswari msjeloba mcire erebis uflebebis Sesaxeb iqonios, xolo araviTari wi-
naswari azri gamotanili ar iqnes~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 64-65). 1920
wlis 14 Tebervlis sxdomaze p. sayvareliZem komisias gaacno ukve sabolood dadge-
nili samuSao gegma. `kiTxvas jer ganixilavs komisia, Semdeg moxdeba komisiisa da
erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebis SeerTebuli sxdoma, xolo dasasrul ko-
misia miiRebs saboloo kanonis proeqts~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 114).
p. sayvareliZe aRniSnavda, rom saqarTveloSi ukve bevri ram praqtikulad iyo
gakeTebuli erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis dasacavad da, amdenad, sakonstitu-
cio komisias mouwevda rig SemTxvevebSi mxolod daefiqsirebina ukve arsebuli
mdgomareoba. magaliTad, im administraciuli erTeulebis sasamarTloebSi, sadac
erovnuli umciresoba 20%-s Seadgenda, gamoiyeneboda Sesabamisi erovnuli umcire-
sobis ena, TviTmmarTvelobis organoebSic gadawyvetili iyo enis sakiTxi, parlamen-
tSic iyo precedenti imisa, rom orators mSobliur enaze misces laparakis ufleba
da a.S.
garkveul problemebTan iyo dakavSirebuli isic, Tu vin unda moewviaT erovnul
umciresobaTa saxeliT. swored es sakiTxi daayena 14 Tebervlis sxdomaze m. rusiam.
magaliTad, igi kategoriuli winaaRmdegi iyo àmierkavkasiis rusTa erovnuli sab-
Wos~ mowvevisa. jer erTi, sabWo ar cnobda saqarTvelos da, saerTod, amierkavkasi-
is damoukideblobas, mas ruseTis nawilad ganixilavda; meorec, laparakobda ara
saqarTvelos, aramed mTeli amierkavkasiis rusuli mosaxleobis saxeliT (scssa, f.
1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 180-181). mas daeTanxma a. Cxenkelic, romelmac aRniSna, rom
mxolod saqarTvelos teritoriaze mcxovrebTa ìuridiuli arsebobis uflebis~ Se-
saxeb SeiZleboda laparaki. Tumca, Semdgom, sakonstitucio komisiasTan Sexvedraze
dauSves yvela sabWo, vinc ki amis survili gamoTqva.
erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebTan Sexvedramde sakonstitucio komisiam,
miRebuli gadawyvetilebis Sesabamisad, moismina komisiis wevrTa moxsenebani. kerZod,
1920 wlis 20 Tebervlis sxdomaze erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis Sesaxeb moxsenebe-
biT gamovidnen p. sayvareliZe da i. baraTaSvili, xolo 26 Tebervals _ g. gvazava.
p. sayvareliZis koncefciasTan axlos idga g. gvazavas pozicia, romelic aseve
moiTxovda erovnuli saxelmwifos ganmtkicebas da aRniSnavda: `Cven winaaRmdegi
varT erovnul umciresobis yovelnair Seviwroebisa da, Tavis mxriv, erovnul umci-
9
malxaz macaberiZe
resobas neba ara aqvs Seaviwrovos saxelmwifo~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc.
125). p. sayvareliZem aRniSna kidec, rom missa da g. gvazavas proeqtebs Soris umniS-
vnelo gansxvavebaa da advilad SeiZleba maTi Sejereba (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq.
181, furc. 126).
i. baraTaSvilis proeqtic erovnuli saxelmwifos ideas eyrdnoboda. èrovnuli
saxelmwifoebis Seqmna xdeba imanenturi ZaliT da rodesac vqmniT aseT saxelmwi-
fos, ar unda Seiqmnas misi mowinaaRmdege Zala~, erovnul umciresobebs unda mieceT
`farTo uflebebi Tavisufali ganviTarebisaTvis. rasakvirvelia im farglebSi, sa-
dac ar ilaxeba erovnuli saxelmwifos interesebi~, _ aRniSnavda igi (scssa, f. 1833,
aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 178). magram p. sayvareliZisa da g. gvazavasagan gansxvavebiT, Se-
saZleblad miiCnevda erovnuli umciresobebisaTvis calmxrivi sajaro uflebebis
miniWebas. erovnul sabWoebs eqnebodaT gadasaxadebis dawesebis ufleba, xolo misi
akrefa moxdeboda saxelmwifo aparatis meSveobiT. saxelmwifosve eqneboda kontro-
lis, `vetos~ ufleba. amdenad, es iyo mxolod `naxevrad sajaro ufleba~, rac, misi
azriT, saSiSi ar iqneboda saxelmwifos mTlianobisaTvis.
moxsenebaTa ganxilvis dros i. baraTaSvilis Tvalsazrisi sajaro uflebebis
miniWebis Sesaxeb gaiziares s. dadianma da a. Cxenkelma, xolo mis winaaRmdeg gadaW-
riT gailaSqres m. rusiam da l. naTaZem. i. baraTaSvilisa da mis momxreTa pozicia
am sakiTxSi sastikad gaakritika p. sayvareliZem: `Cven davaarseT nacionaluri sa-
xelmwifo da TavgamodebiT vicavT mas; amave dros ki Tqven gindaT SeqmnaT sajaro
uflebrivi organizaciebi, romelic eWvs gareSea, arRvevs da Zirs uTxris am saxel-
mwifos; Tqven gindaT saxelmwifoebi SeqmnaT saxelmwifoSi da amiT gana Tqvenive xe-
liT ar spobT imas, ris gakeTeba da aSeneba TiTqos miznad daisaxeT...~ (scssa, f.
1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 128).
3. sakonstitucio komisiis sxdomebi erovnul umciresobaTa

warmomadgenlebis monawileobiT
sakonstitucio komisiam, misi wevrebis mier momzadebuli moxsenebebisa da pro-
eqtebis mosmenisa da ganxilvis Semdeg, 26 Tebervals daadgina, rom komisiis 3 mar-
tis sxdomaze moewvia erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebi, romelTac komisii-
saTvis unda gaecnoT TavianTi proeqtebi. araviTar kamaTs warmomadgenlebTan adgi-
li ar unda hqonoda. SeiZleboda mxolod SekiTxvebis micema; warmodgenili proeq-
tebi komisias unda gamoeyenebina rogorc masala (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181,
furc. 125). gancxadeba erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebis sxdomaze mowvevis
Sesaxeb gamoqveynda presaSi.
1920 wlis 3 martis sxdomaze, romelsac eswrebodnen komisiis wevrebi a. Cxenke-
li, i. baraTaSvili, m. rusia, l. naTaZe, k. jafariZe, g. gvazava, p. geleiSvili, t. ave-
tisiani, gamocxaddnen somxebis, TaTrebis (azerbaijanelebis), rusebis, germanele-
bis, berZnebis, Tbilisis ebraelTa erovnuli sabWoebis da ebraelTa social-demok-
ratiuli partia `bundis~ warmomadgenlebi.
sxdomis Tavmjdomarem, i. baraTaSvilma damswreT Seaxsena maTi mowvevis mizezi da
sTxova warmoedginaT TavianTi proeqtebi erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis Sesaxeb.
gamoirkva, rom erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebi amisaTvis mzad ar iyvnen.
rusebis erovnuli sabWos warmomadgenelma ganacxada, rom mas SeuZlia mxolod
Tavisi piradi azris gamoTqma da raime oficialuri proeqti ar gaaCnda. somxebis
erovnuli sabWos warmomadgenelmac ganacxada, rom maT jer sabolood ar hqondaT
SemuSavebuli TavianTi proeqti.
mxolod elinTa sabWos warmomadgenelma ganacxada, rom mas Tan hqonda proeqti
da SesaZleblad miiCnia: `vinaidan yoveli erovnebis warmomadgenels usaTuod aqvs
10
garkveuli azri sakiTxis Sesaxeb, dResve iqnas mosmenili proeqtebi, miuxedavad imi-
sa, werilobiT iqneba igi warmodgenili Tu ara~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180,
furc. 209). pasuxad i. baraTaSvilma aRniSna, rom komisiisaTvis am SemTxvevaSi mniS-
vneloba aqvs ara kerZo pirTa azrebs, aramed `warmomadgenlebis, rogorc aseTebis,
oficialur azrsa da Sexedulebas~.
somexTa erovnuli sabWos warmomadgenelma komisias mosTxova, rom erovnuli
sabWoebisaTvis gadaecaT proeqti, romelic, misi azriT, ukve momzadebuli hqonda
komisias, Semdeg ki daumata, rom erovnuli sabWoebis warmomadgenlebi unda gaecnon
àra marto sakonstitucio komisiis im muSaobas, romelic Seexeba kerZod erovnul
umciresobaTa sakiTxs, aramed saerTod mTel konstitucias~. misi TqmiT, es erov-
nul sabWoebs daexmareboda sakuTari proeqtebis SemuSavebaSi; garda amisa, man sur-
vili gamoTqva, rom komisia erovnul umciresobaTa Tvalsazrisis mosmeniT ki ar
Semofargluliyo, aramed maT urTierTobas mudmivi TanamSromlobis saxe mieRo.
somxebis warmomadgenlis Tvalsazrisi gaiziara rusTa sabWos warmomadgenel-
mac. man aRniSna, rom `yoveli masala, romelsac ki gadmogvcems sakonstitucio ko-
misia, sagrZnoblad daaCqarebda Cveni proeqtis damuSavebas~, amasTan SeuZleblad
miiCnia, rom TanamSromloba gansazRvruliyo mxolod proeqtebis wardgeniT. misi
azriT, erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebis monawileoba unda gafarToebuli-
yo da maT gareSe ar gadawyvetiliyo es didmniSvnelovani sakiTxi.
somxebisa da rusebis warmomadgenelTa aseTi gancxadebebis gamo m. rusiam aR-
niSna, rom komisias ar miuRia raime proeqti, `winaaRmdeg SemTxvevaSi komisiisaTvis
azri ar eqneboda erovnebaTa warmomadgenlebis mowvevas~. maT mier wamoyenebuli
moTxovnebi ki arsebiTad rolebis Secvlas iwvevda: `warmomadgenlebs Cven vTxov-
diT masalebs, exla ki isini gvTxoven; masalebi ki Cven gvinda, Cvena varT sakonsti-
tucio komisia da ara Tqven; komisia ver gadmogcemT masalebs, romelic mas ara
aqvs" (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 212).
a. Cxenkelma aRniSna, rom, Tuki komisia saWirod CaTvlida, kidev moiwvevdnen
erovnul umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebs. Tavidan ki umjobesi iyo mieRoT sakonsti-
tucio komisiis mier SemoTavazebuli gegma. misi winadadebiT sxdoma gadaido. daad-
gines, rom Semdegi SeerTebuli sxdoma Sedgeboda 10 marts, xolo sakonstitucio
komisiisaTvis proeqtebi unda waredginaT ara ugvianes 8 martisa.
1920 wlis 10 martis sxdomaze misul erovnul umciresobaTa delegatebs Seema-
taT osebis warmomadgenelic. agreTve qarTvel ebraelTa saxeliT sxdomas daeswro
i. xaxanaSvili. miuxedavad dadgenili vadisa, proeqti yvela erovnul umciresobas
ar hqonda warmodgenili. pirvelad moismines germanelTa sabWos proeqti. Semdeg ga-
movida elinTa warmomadgeneli, romelmac aRniSna, rom berZnuli umciresoba gansa-
kuTrebul mdgomareobaSia. mcire aziidan gadmoxvewilebs TiTqmis mTlianad dakar-
guli hqondaT mSobliuri kultura da amitom didi muSaoba dasWirdebodaT erovnu-
li TviTmyofadobis SesanarCuneblad. elinTa sabWos pozicia uaRresad konstruqci-
uli iyo. maTi warmomadgeneli n. politovi aRniSnavda: `yvelaferi, rac Cven proeq-
tSi aris, nakarnaxevia cxovrebiT da misi daTmoba CvenTvis Znelia, magram mzad
varT ukan waviRoT mTeli proeqti, Tu igi ewinaaRmdegeba zogadsaxelmwifoebriv
konstitucias da respublikis interesebs~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 203).
rusebis erovnuli sabWos warmomadgenelma ganacxada, rom mtkice da demokrati-
uli saxelmwifos Seqmna SesaZlebelia mxolod maSin, roca `TiToeul erovnul um-
ciresobas saSualeba aqvs Tavisuflad ganviTardes da ar grZnobdes araTu raime
Zaldatanebas, aramed mcire gavlenasac ki~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 203).
amisaTvis, misi azriT, unda ganxorcielebuliyo nacionalur-kulturuli avtonomia
da erovnul centrebs miscemodaT `sajaro-uflebrivi xasiaTi~. Semdeg TavianTi
11
malxaz macaberiZe
proeqtebi waradgines muslimebma (e.i. azerbaijanelebma), Tbilisis ebraelebma, `bun-

dma~. qarTvel ebraelTa saxeliT gancxadeba gaakeTa i. xaxanaSvilma.
somexTa erovnuli sabWos warmomadgenelma ganacxada, rom maT jer kidev ver
daamTavres proeqtis SemuSaveba da Semdegi sxdomisaTvis SeZlebdnen mis warmodge-
nas. osebis delegatma ki aRniSna, rom maT proeqti Tavis droze Caabares damfuZne-
beli krebis TviTmmarTvelobis komisias da saWiro iyo misi moZieba.
amitom 13 martisTvis dainiSna kidev erTi sxdoma erovnul umciresobaTa warmo-
madgenlebis monawileobiT, Tumca misi Catareba mxolod 17 marts moxerxda. mas da-
eswrnen somxebis, rusebis, osebis, ebraelebis, TaTrebis (azerbaijanelebis) da ger-
manelebis erovnuli sabWoebis warmomadgenlebi. gaecnen darCenil or proeqts. som-
xebisa da osebis erovnuli sabWoebis proeqtebis mosmeniT sakonstitucio komisiam
daamTavra erovnul umciresobaTa mosazrebebis gacnoba.
p. sayvareliZem madloba gadauxada erovnuli sabWoebis warmomadgenlebs da xazi
gausva, rom komisia ixelmZRvanelebda warmodgenili proeqtebiT da saWiroebis Sem-
TxvevaSi kidev moiwvevda maT. garda amisa, erovnul umciresobebs TavianTi warmomad-
genlebi hyavdaT damfuZnebel krebaSi, romelTac ufleba hqondaT yovelTvis daswre-
bodnen sakonstitucio komisiis sxdomebs (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 194). es
iyo pasuxi somexTa da rusTa erovnuli sabWoebis warmomadgenelTa daJinebul moTx-
ovnaze, sistematiuri monawileoba mieRoT sakonstitucio komisiis muSaobaSi.
sxdomis damTavrebis Semdeg p.sayvareliZes TxovniT mimarTa somexTa erovnuli
sabWos warmomadgenelma da calke Sexvedra iTxova, radganac, misi TqmiT, ar SeeZ-
loT `yvelafris Tqma amden erovnebaTa warmomadgenlebTan mravalricxovan kreba-
ze~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 195). am Txovnam azrTa sxvadasxvaoba gamoiw-
via. p. sayvareliZesa da k. jafariZes SesaZleblad miaCndaT misi dakmayofileba da
saerTo sxdomis Semdeg somexTa warmomadgenlis calke mosmena, magram p. geleiS-
vilma da i. baraTaSvilma aseTi ram dauSveblad CaTvales. p. geleiSvilis sityve-
biT: àq keTdeba istoriuli saqme, yvelaferi dawerili, aSkara da daumalavi unda
iyos yvelasagan. miuRebeli mdgomareobaa is, rom Tqven yvelas gamoemSvidobeT, mad-
loba uTxariT da exla erTs calke iwvevT, _ gamodis, rom CvenTvis TiTqo erTi me-
zobeli ufro kargi da Zvirfasia meoreze~. igive aRniSna i. baraTaSvilmac: `gauge-
bari es ambavi ar darCeba da metad cud STabeWdilebas moaxdens~ (scssa, f. 1833,
aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 195).
komisiam mxari dauWira i. baraTaSvilis winadadebas. somexTa erovnuli sabWos
warmomadgenels uari eTqva saerTo sxdomis Semdeg calke miRebaze. mas SesTavazes,
rom misuliyo komisiis erT-erT momdevno sxdomaze da iq Camoeyalibebina is `mosaz-
rebani umciresobis uflebaTa Sesaxeb, romelTa gancxadeba sazogado sxdomaze, ma-
Tive sityviT, uxerxulad miaCndaT~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 195).
komisiam gadawyvita, rom misi yvela wevri safuZvlianad gascnoboda warmodge-
nil proeqtebs da momdevno sxdoma mieZRvnaT maTi ganxilvisaTvis. aRniSnuli sxdo-
ma 1920 wlis 20 marts gaimarTa. sanam mis Sesaxeb raimes vityodeT, jer mokled da-
vaxasiaToT erovnul umciresobaTa saxeliT wardgenili proeqtebi.
4. erovnuli sabWoebis mier sakonstitucio komisiaSi wardgenili proeqtebi

sakonstitucio komisiis masalebSi daculia 7 proeqti: 1) rusTa erovnuli sab-
Wos mier wardgenili proeqti erovnuli umciresobebis uflebebis Sesaxeb; 2) somex-
Ta erovnuli sabWos mier SemuSavebuli, saqarTveloSi somexTa erovnuli TviTmmar-
Tvelobis konstituciis Tezisebi; 3) saqarTvelos berZeni (elini) moqalaqeebis me-2
yrilobis mier miRebuli saqarTvelos elinTa TviTmmarTvelobis statutis proeq-
ti; 4) aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mahmadianTa uflebebis proeqti; 5) samxreT oseTis
12
erovnuli sabWos mier warmodgenili samxreT oseTis kantonis konstituciis proeq-

ti; 6) amierkavkasiis germanelTa kavSiris centraluri sabWos mier warmodgenili
proeqti saqarTveloSi germanelTa kulturuli avtonomiis Sesaxeb; 7) saqarTvelos
respublikis ebraelTa erovnuli umciresobis uflebaTa proeqti.
am proeqtebis Seswavla mravalmxrivaa saintereso. pirvel rigSi unda iTqvas,
rom mxolod rusTa erovnuli sabWos mier wamoyenebuli proeqti cdilobda gamosu-
liyo zogadkonstituciuri principebidan da Camoeyalibebina erovnul umciresoba-
Ta konstituciuri uflebebi da garantiebi. danarCen proeqtebSi ki Camoyalibebuli
iyo mxolod Sesabamisi erovnuli umciresobis moTxovnebi. bunebrivia, aseTi ramis
dafiqsireba konstituciaSi SeuZlebeli iyo. amasTan dakavSirebiT sakonstitucio
komisiis 1920 wlis 10 martis sxdomaze damfuZnebeli krebis wevri bernSteini aRniS-
navda: `rom mogvTxovon germanelebisaTvis raime calke garantia SevitanoT konsti-
tuciaSi, es SeuZlebelia; veravis mivcemT raime gansakuTrebul uflebebs, yvela un-
da daemorCilos im ZiriTad kanonebs, romelzedac dafuZnebuli iqneba saerTod
mTeli respublika da kerZod misi nawili _ erovnuli umciresoba~ (scssa, f. 1833,
aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 203).
SeiniSneboda sakuTari erovnuli umciresobis sxvebTan SedarebiT maRla dayene-
bis survilic. magaliTad, sakonstitucio komisiis 1920 wlis 26 Tebervlis sxdoma-
ze sakonstitucio komisiis wevrma avetisianma aRniSna, rom saqarTvelom `mTavari
yuradReba unda miaqcios im umciresobas, romelnic mudmivad cxovroben respubli-
kis teritoriaze; rusebi, germanelebi, berZnebi wavlen da Cven unda vecadoT im um-
ciresobaTa cxovreba movawesrigoT, romelnic aq rCebian~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq.
181, furc. 207). gasagebia, rom t. avetisiani pirvel rigSi somxebs gulisxmobda.
ama Tu im erovnuli umciresobis saxeliT warmodgenili proeqti Sedgenili iyo
garkveuli politikuri jgufebis mier, rac zogjer TviTon im erovnuli umcireso-
bis SigniT iwvevda ukmayofilebas. magaliTad, imave bernSteinma, komisiis sxdomaze,
germanelTa proeqtis mosmenis Semdeg, ganacxada: `proeqti, romelic warmodgenilia
amierkavkasiis germanelTa kavSiris cent. sabWosagan, Sedgenilia adgilobrivi ger-
manelebis zogierTi jgufebis gavleniT, rac mtkicdeba imiT, rom proeqti iTxovs
miwiT sargeblobas germanelebisaTvis SerCes STamomavlobiTi xasiaTi~ (scssa, f.
1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 203). aseve, ebraelTa erovnuli umciresobis saxeliT Se-
tanilma proeqtma qarTvel ebraelTa aRSfoTeba da protesti gamoiwvia.
rusTa erovnuli sabWos mier wardgenili proeqti arsebiTad moiTxovda imas,
rasac p. sayvareliZe `saxelmwifoSi saxelmwifos mSeneblobas~ uwodebda. proeqtis
mixedviT, saqarTvelos moqalaqeebi mkacrad unda gamijnodnen erTmaneTs erovnuli
niSnis mixedviT; saqarTvelos moqalaqeebi e.w. `nacionalur kadastrebSi~ unda gana-
wilebuliyvnen. yoveli erovnuli umciresoba sayovelTao arCevnebis gziT qmnida
kavSirs centraluri da adgilobrivi organoebiT. kavSiri iqneboda erovnuli TviT-
mmarTvelobis organo. saqarTvelos mTavrobasTan TiToeul erovnul umciresobas
eyoleboda Tavisi warmomadgeneli. socialuri da kulturul-saganmanaTleblo sa-
WiroebaTa dasakmayofileblad gamoyofili saxsrebi saxelmwifo da adgilobriv
TviTmmarTvelobis biujetidan proporciulad unda ganawilebuliyo saqarTvelos
mosaxleobaSi erovnuli umciresobis xvedriTi wilis mixedviT. garda amisa, sabWos
unda hqonoda gadasaxadis dawesebis ufleba Tavisi erovnebis moqalaqeebisaTvis
erovnuli TviTmmarTvelobis saWiroebaTa dasakmayofileblad. rusebis sabWo ag-
reTve moiTxovda yvela enis absolutur Tanasworobas yvela sferoSi da amiT uar-
yofda saxelmwifo enis saWiroebas.
somexTa erovnuli sabWos proeqtis mixedviTac saqarTvelos farglebSi iqmnebo-
da somxuri erovnuli TviTmmarTveloba, romelsac ganaxorcielebda somexi erovne-
13
malxaz macaberiZe
bis moqalaqeTa mier arCeuli erovnuli kreba da misi aRmasrulebeli organo _

erovnuli sabWo. orive miCneuli iyo sajaro-samarTlebriv organod uZravi da moZ-
ravi qonebis SeZena-gasxvisebis uflebiT. raionebSi, sadac somxuri mosaxleobis
xvedriTi wili 15%-s mainc aRwevda (mazraSi, qalaqSi, TemSi, sofelSi), somxuri ena
saxelmwifo enis Tanabrad unda gamoeyenebinaT. centraluri xelisuflebis yvela
kanoni da dadgenileba somxuradac unda gamoqveynebuliyo, iseve rogorc adgilob-
rivi TviTmmarTvelobis organoebisa, sadac somxuri mosaxleoba zemoaRniSnul maC-
venebels aRwevda.
erovnul sabWos evaleboda somexi pirebisa da somxuri dawesebulebebis intere-
sebis dacva, saxalxo ganaTlebisa da kulturis saqmeTa gamgebloba, janmrTelobis
dacvis, soflis meurneobisa da socialuri uzrunvelyofis sakiTxebze zrunva. so-
mexTa erovnuli sabWoc moiTxovda biujetis proporciul ganawilebas da gadasaxa-
debis dawesebis uflebas somxur mosaxleobaze, mis kompetenciaSi arsebul saqmeTa
saWiroebisaTvis. ministrTa sabWos sxdomaSi ministrTa uflebiT monawileoba unda
mieRo somexTa erovnuli sabWos warmomadgenels.
berZenTa saxeliT wardgenili `saqarTvelos elinTa TviTmmarTvelobis statu-
ti~ iTvaliswinebda erovnuli TviTmmarTvelobis uflebas socialur-ekonomikur da
kulturis sakiTxebSi. erovnuli TviTmmarTvelobis organod cxaddeboda berZnuli
mosaxleobis mier arCeuli saqarTvelos elinTa umaRlesi sabWo. mis kompetenciaSi
unda Sesuliyo berZnuli mosaxleobis kulturul-saganmanaTleblo moTxovnilebe-
bis dakmayofileba, socialur-ekonomikuri daxmarebis organizeba, qvelmoqmedeba,
zrunva janmrTelobis dacvaze da sxva. masve ekisreboda warmomadgenloba saxel-
mwifos centralur da adgilobriv organoebSi, saqalaqo da saero TviTmmarTvelo-
bebSi yvela im sakiTxze, rac berZnul mosaxleobas Seexeboda. elinTa proeqti
mxars uWerda agreTve samxedro valdebulebis teritoriuli principis mixedviT
moxdas; surda, rom sasamarTlo-administraciuli dayofa berZenTa bunebrivi gansax-
lebis Sesabamisi yofiliyo (erovnuli Temebis `gamoWra~). sabWo aseve moiTxovda bi-
ujetis proporciul gayofas da berZnuli mosaxleobis progresul-saSemosavlo ga-
dasaxadiT dabegvris uflebas. erovnuli sabWosa da berZenTa yvela organizaciis
samuSao enad berZnuli cxaddeboda, oRond droebiT gamoyenebuli iqneboda rusu-
li, rogorc yvelasaTvis gasagebi ena.
aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mahmadianTa saxeliT warmodgenili proeqti moiTxovda
muslimTa mier erTi ministrisa da ori ministris amxanagis (moadgilis) arCevis uf-
lebas. mosamarTleebad, gamomZieblebad da administraciul Tanamdebobebze arCeva
da daniSvna mahmadianuri mosaxleobis adgilebSi mahmadianebisagan unda momxdariyo,
xolo Sereuli mosaxleobis raionebSi _ iq mcxovreb mahmadianTa proporciulad.
moiTxovdnen respublikis yvela dawesebulebaSi gancxadebis miRebisa da mimoweris
uflebas TavianT enaze, risTvisac unda SemoRebuliyo sagangebod ganswavlul Tar-
jimanTa Stati.
mahmadianuri da aramahmadianuri mosaxleobis proporciis Sesabamisad mahmadia-
nebs unda miscemodaT adgilebi damfuZnebel krebasa da parlamentSi, am adgilebze
kandidatTa arCeva mahmadianTa mier unda momxdariyo saqarTveloSi arsebuli parti-
ebis monawileobis gareSe.
moiTxovdnen mahmadianebisaTvis sakmao raodenobiT gaxsniliyo yvela saxis sas-
wavlebeli da gimnazia. iq swavleba xazinis xarjze da SariaTis safuZvelze unda
yofiliyo. saSualo saswavleblis damTavrebis Semdeg saswavleblad sazRvargare-
Tac unda gaegzavnaT.
moiTxovdnen aseve religiuri avtonomiis ganxorcielebas. gansakuTrebul mahma-
dianur mejliss unda ganexila sasuliero sakiTxebi, ganqorwinebisa da memkvidreo-
14
bis saqmeebi. mazrebSi gaTvaliswinebuli iyo specialuri Statebi aRniSnuli saqmee-

bisaTvis. es yovelive unda momxdariyo xazinis xarjze. mahmadianebs mTel respub-
likaSi ufleba unda miscemodaT daecvaT TavianTi dResaswauli _ paraskevi da
sxva; amasTan, aravis unda aeZulebina isini, qristianul dResaswaulebze daeketaT
maRaziebi, SeewyvitaT vaWroba da a.S.
samxreT oseTis erovnuli sabWos proeqti raWis, Sorapnis, gorisa da duSeTis
mazrebSi kompaqturad gansaxlebuli osebis teritorias miiCnevda `pirvel oseTad~
da misTvis teritoriul-erovnul avtonomias moiTxovda, ris safuZvladac miaCnda
`samxreT oseTis kantonis konstituciis proeqti~, miRebuli samxreT oseTis erov-
nuli sabWos mier 1919 wlis 19 ivnisis sxdomaze. saqarTvelos respublikis danarCen
teritoriaze mcxovreb osebs ki mxars uWerda rusTa erovnuli sabWos mier wamoye-
nebuli kulturul-nacionaluri avtonomiis proeqti.
konstituciis proeqtis mixedviT, samxreT oseTis kantoni cxaddeboda saqarTve-
los respublikis avtonomiur nawilad; kantonis farglebs gareT mcxovrebi osebi
kantonis gamgeblobis qveS unda yofiliyvnen kulturuli avtonomiis farglebSi.
kantons ufleba unda hqonoda sxva saxelmwifosTan daedo xelSekrulebebi ekonomi-
kur, samezoblo da sapolicio urTierTobebTan dakavSirebiT, oRond maTSi ar unda
yofiliyo raime sawinaaRmdego respublikis interesebisa. kantonis xelSi unda yo-
filiyo mis teritoriaze arsebuli bunebrivi simdidreebi. samxedro valdebuleba
jarSi gawveulT kantonis teritoriaze unda moexdinaT. isini calke samxedro Sena-
erTs Seadgendnen, romlis sardalsac mSvidobian dros kantonis xelisufleba da-
niSnavda.
kantonis dawesebulebebSi saqmis warmoeba da respublikis organoebTan urTier-
Toba osur enaze unda ganxorcielebuliyo. kantonSi xelisuflebis organoebad sa-
xalxo sabWo da saxalxo komisariati cxaddeboda.
amierkavkasiis germanelTa kavSiris centralurma sabWom moiTxova germanelTa
kulturuli avtonomiis ganxorcieleba, rac, maTi azriT, iTvaliswinebda mSobliu-
ri enis SeuzRudav gamoyenebas Sin da sazogadoebriv cxovrebaSi _ TviTmmarTvelo-
bis organoebsa da soflis sasamarTlo dawesebulebebSi; germanul kulturasTan,
mecnierebasTan kavSiris SenarCunebas da mis Tavisufal gavrcelebas saswavlo-sa-
ganmanaTleblo dawesebulebebis meSveobiT; sakuTari religiis da, pirvel rigSi,
evangelistur-luTeranuli religiis Tavisufal aRmsareblobas eklesiaSi, skolasa
da saxlSi, germanuli enis gamoyenebiT; germanuli zneobrivi cnobierebis, tradici-
ebisa da TviTmyofadobis SenarCunebis uflebas, germanuli kulturis propagandis
uflebas, sakuTari sameurneo meTodebisa da wesebis gamoyenebas. moiTxovdnen aseve
kulturis saWiroebisaTvis TviTdabegvris uflebas; TviTmmarTvelobis uflebas
rogorc qalaqad, ise soflad, ramdenadac is ar ewinaaRmdegeba saxelmwifos inte-
resebs. surdaT koloniebis mTlianobis SenarCuneba iseve, rogorc amierkavkasiis
germanelTa kavSirisa da misi aRmasrulebeli organos funqcionirebis gagrZeleba.
ebraelTa saxeliT Setanili proeqtis mixedviT, ebraelTa erovnuli umciresoba
(romelic Semdgom unda aRricxuliyo nacionalur kadastrSi) qmnida kavSirs, irCev-
da centralur da adgilobriv erovnul sabWoebs da anxorcielebda erovnul TviT-
mmarTvelobas. mis gankargulebaSi gadadioda kulturul-saganmanaTleblo, socia-
lur-ekonomikur da janmrTelobis dacvis sakiTxebze zrunva; evaleboda ebraeli
mosaxleobis interesebis wardgena da dacva. proeqti mxars uWerda saxelmwifo da
TviTmmarTvelobis biujetebSi aRniSnuli sferoebisaTvis gamoyofili saxsrebis
proporciul ganawilebas erovnul umciresobaTa xvedriTi wilis mixedviT, agreTve
TviTdabegvris uflebas progresul-saSemosavlo principiT.
15
malxaz macaberiZe
5. erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis gansazRvra

sakonstitucio komisiis 1920 wlis 20 martis sxdoma mTlianad mieZRvna erovnul
umciresobaTa mier wardgenili proeqtebis ganxilvas. Semajamebeli saxiT, am sa-
kiTxs kvlav daubrundnen 5 maisis sxdomaze, rodesac p. sayvareliZem gamoyo erov-
nul umciresobaTa saxeliT wardgenili moTxovnebis xuTi ZiriTadi tipi:
1. erovnuli umciresoba ar iTxovda araviTar gansakuTrebul uflebebs (qarTveli
ebraelebi);
2. umniSvnelo xasiaTis konkretuli moTxovnebi;
3. kulturul-sarwmunoebrivi avtonomia (aRmosavleT saqarTvelos mahmadianebi);
4. kulturuli avtonomia (rusebi, somxebi, berZnebi, araqarTveli ebraelebi);
5. kulturuli da teritoriuli avtonomia.
rogori iyo sakonstitucio komisiis damokidebuleba am moTxovnebisadmi? pir-
vel rigSi angariSgasawevad da dasaZlevad miaCndaT is undobloba, rasac erovnul
umciresobaTa warmomadgenlebi avlendnen saqarTvelos saxelmwifosadmi. swored
amaze miuTiTebda a. Cxenkeli 20 martis sxdomaze: ùmciresobaTa warmomadgenlebis
moxsenebebma Cemze cudi STabeWdileba moaxdina. me davinaxe maTi sruli undobloba
Cvendami; es metad damafiqrebeli da saSiSi garemoebaa. Cven unda SevecadoT im un-
doblobis gaqarwylebas da SevqmnaT erTad mSvidobiani cxovrebis pirobebi~ (scssa,
f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 180).
erovnuli sabWoebis mier wamoyenebulma zogierTma moTxovnam kamaTi gamoiwvia.
gamoikveTa sami pozicia:
− mTlianad daekmayofilebinaT es moTxovnebi;
− miecaT TviTdabegvrisa da kulturuli uflebebi;
− sajaro uflebebis miniWebis gareSe erovnul umciresobebisaTvis miecaT `didi
garantiebi, iseTi garantiebi, romlis magvari arc erT konstituciaSi ar moipo-
veba~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 218).
mTavari sakiTxi, romelmac azrTa sxvadasxvaoba gamoiwvia, iyo erovnul umcire-
sobaTa organizaciebisaTvis sajaro uflebebis miniWebis SesaZlebloba, anu misce-
modaT Tu ara Sesabamisi erovnuli umciresobisaTvis savaldebulo gadasaxadis da-
wesebisa da iZulebiTi akrefis ufleba.
i. baraTaSvili mxars uWerda aseTi uflebis miniWebas, radganac, misi azriT, es
aucilebeli iyo erovnul umciresobaTa kulturuli ganviTarebisaTvis: `Cven terito-
riaze binadrobs ukulturo umciresobani da maTSi kulturis Sesatanad saWiroa daa-
wesos gadasaxadi samarTliani da kanonieri~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 179).
erovnuli sabWoebis mier savaldebulo gadasaxadebis dawesebis ufleba, rac
amave dros gulisxmobda erovnul kavSirebSi moqalaqeTa iZulebiT gaerTianebas,
komisiam miuReblad miiCnia. g. gvazavam da p. sayvareliZem xazi gausves, rom, jer
erTi, savaldebulo gadasaxadis daweseba e.w. sajaro uflebas warmoadgens da sa-
xelmwifos funqciaa. arc erT saxelmwifoSi erovnul umciresobas aseTi ufleba
ara aqvs miniWebuli; garda amisa, msgavsi moTxovnebi arademokratiuli iyo da zRu-
davda moqalaqis Tavisuflebas. g. gvazavas SeniSvniT, `SeuZlebelia konstituciaSi
Sevides kanoni, romelic ama Tu im organizacias uflebas miscems sruliad SeboWos
moqalaqis Tavisufleba da gadaylapos igi~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 179).
sakonstitucio komisiis azriT, erovnul kavSirebSi moqalaqeTa gaerTianeba,
iseve rogorc iqidan gamosvla, mxolod nebayoflobiTi SeiZleba yofiliyo; ro-
gorc a. Cxenkeli miuTiTebda, kavSiris daarseba ufleba iyo da ara movaleoba.
amave dros, k. jafariZem da a. Cxenkelma, romlebic winaaRmdegni iyvnen erovnul
umciresobaTa organizaciebisaTvis gadasaxadebis dawesebis uflebis micemisa, Se-
16
saZleblad miiCnies maTTvis sxvadasxva saxis sajaro uflebis micema, kerZod, mxari
dauWires kulturis sakiTxebze gaTvaliswinebuli saxelmwifo biujetis proporci-
ul ganawilebas. `biujetidan nawilis gamoyofa da misi kavSiris gankargulebisaT-
vis gadacema, es aris erTaderTi sajaro ufleba, romelic, Cveni azriT, unda mieces
umciresobas~, _ aRniSnavda k. jafariZe. misi azriT, es unda momxdariyo kavSiris
wevrTa raodenobis mixedviT. aqedan gamomdinare, periodulad moxdeboda Sesabamisi
wilis gadaangariSeba kavSiris wevrTa raodenobis Semcirebis Tu zrdis mixedviT.
p. sayvareliZem, romelsac g. gvazava daeTanxma, gadaWriT gailaSqra aseTi geg-
mis winaaRmdegac, radgan, misi azriT, es mxolod arev-darevasa da qaoss gamoiwvev-
da: `warmoudgenelia is sirTule da arev-dareva, romelsac gamoiwvevs biujetis da-
nawileba da kavSirebidan gamosuli wevrebis mixedviT warmoebuli angariSebi; 8 Tu
10 sajaro-uflebrivi organizacia, 8 Tu 10 nawilad dayofa biujetisa da angariSe-
bi, gana warmosadgenia aseTi mdgomareobis daSveba iq, sadac erovnuli saxelmwifo
Sendeba? es SeuZlebelia, Cven ver gavanawilebT biujets da saerTod uari unda
vTqvaT sajaro uflebebze, Tu gvsurs erovnuli saxelmwifo davamyaroT mkvidr nia-
dagze~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 180).
p. sayvareliZis azriT, sajaro uflebebis gadacema erovnuli kavSirebisaTvis
niSnavs saxelmwifos SigniT axali saxelmwifoebis Seqmnas da, maSasadame, aryevs sa-
qarTveloSi erovnul-saxelmwifoebrivi aRmSeneblobis saqmes, risTvisac, faqtobri-
vad, iwereba TviT konstitucia. `Cven vwerT konstitucias unitaruli saxelmwifo-
saTvis. osebs ki mag., surT dagvawerinon konfederaciuli an federaciuli saxel-
mwifosaTvis; CemTvis es sruliad miuRebeli garemoebaa (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq.
181, furc. 178).
g. gvazava miuTiTebda, rom TviTon Cveni saxelmwifos demokratiuli mmarTvelo-
ba iqneboda garantia ùmciresobis Tavisufali arsebobisa~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1,
saq. 181, furc. 180). p. sayvareliZes erovnuli umciresobebisaTvis konstituciuri
uflebebisa da garantiebis miniWebis saqmeSi dasaSvebad miaCnda misvla `zed saja-
ro uflebis sazRvarze~. misi azriT, am farglebSi Zalze farTo uflebebi eqceoda,
`romelic savsebiT uzrunvelyofs umciresobis Tavisufal arsebobas da ganviTare-
bas~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 178).
1920 wlis 5 maisis sxdomaze sakonstitucio komisiam kenWisyriT gansazRvra, rom
konstituciis proeqtis Tavs erovnuli umciresobebis uflebebis Sesaxeb safuZ-
vlad dasdeboda p. sayvareliZis proeqti. misi arsi kargadaa gamoxatuli ZiriTad
debulebebSi, romlebic TviTon p. sayvareliZem Camoayaliba sakonstitucio komisiis
1920 wlis 20 martis sxdomaze:
_ ar SeiZleba SeizRudos saqarTvelos respublikis romelime erovnuli umci-
resobis Tavisufali politikuri, social-ekonomikuri da kulturuli ganviTareba,
gansakuTrebiT misi dedaenaze swavla, aRzrda da nacionalur-kulturul saqmeTa
Sinauri marTva-gamgeoba; p. sayvareliZis azriT, es muxli deklaraciuli xasiaTis
iyo, magram mas didi mniSvneloba hqonda;
_ ama Tu im erovnuli umciresobisadmi kuTvnileba unda Zaldautaneblad gani-
sazRvros, moqalaqeTa survilisa da nebayoflobiTi gancxadebis Tanaxmad;
_ yovel umciresobas unda hqondes ufleba, Seadginos erovnuli kavSiri respub-
likis mTel teritoriaze, romelic kanonis farglebSi gauZRveba kulturis saqme-
ebs; aseTi centris Seqmna, p. sayvareliZis azriT, aucilebeli iyo;
_ moqalaqe garantirebuli unda iyos, rom mis politikur da moqalaqeobriv uf-
lebas araviTari safrTxe ar moelis ama Tu im kavSirSi monawileobisaTvis;
_ erovnul kavSirs unda SeeZlos sasamarTlos winaSe aRZras da daicvas saqme,
Tuki irRveva konstituciiT an kanoniT aRiarebuli erovnul umciresobaTa ufleba-
17
malxaz macaberiZe
ni. p. sayvareliZis sityvebiT: ès ar Seicavs sajaro uflebas da amave dros umcire-
sobisaTvis didi garantiaa~;
− yovel moqalaqes, miuxedavad erovnuli kuTvnilebisa, Tanaswori ufleba aqvs mi-
iRos yovelgvari Tanamdeboba yovelgvar samsaxurSi;
− erovnulad Sereuli TviTmmarTveloba valdebulia swavla-ganaTlebisaTvis mi-
Rebuli TanxiT daaarsos sakmao ricxvi skolebisa da kulturul-saganmanaTleb-
lo dawesebulebebisa mcxovrebTa erovnuli Semadgenlobis proporciis mixed-
viT;
− erovnul umciresobaTa mier daarsebuli skolebi unda iyos saxelmwifos kon-
trolis qveS. miuRebelia isini scildebodnen zogadi saswavlo programis far-
glebs, amave dros, aseT skolebSi savaldebulo unda yofiliyo saxelmwifo
enis swavleba;
− Tu romelime adgilobrivi TviTmmarTvelobis farglebSi mcxovrebTa umravle-
soba (50%-ze meti) araqarTveli erovnebisaa, saqmis warmoeba sxvadasxva dawese-
bulebaSi saxelmwifo enasTan erTad unda warmoebdes im umciresobis enaze, xo-
lo umciresobis enis gamoyeneba im mmarTvelobebSi, sadac erovnuli umciresoba
Seadgens aranakleb 20%-s, unda gansazRvruliyo kanoniT;
− Sereuli mosaxleobis raionebSi adgilobrivma mmarTvelma da mosamarTlem, sa-
xelmwifo enis codnasTan erTad, unda icodes erovnuli umciresobis ena;
− kanoni unda iTargmnebodes erovnuli umciresobebis enebzec, raTa uzrunvelyo-
fili iyos misi swori gageba da Sesruleba;
− parlamentis wevrs, romelmac qarTuli ar icis, ufleba unda hqonoda sityva
mSobliur enaze warmoeTqva.
p. sayvareliZis azriT, ukanaskneli ori muxli droebiTi iyo da unda gauqmebu-
liyo àm konstituciis ZaliT mowveul pirveli parlamentis vadis gasvlisas~
(scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 128).
sakonstitucio komisiis 1920 wlis 5 maisis sxdomaze Seudgnen p.sayvareliZis mi-
er SemuSavebuli proeqtis muxlobriv ganxilvas da miRebas. proeqtis ganxilva gag-
rZelda sakonstitucio komisiis 8 da 10 maisis sxdomebze. garkveuli saredaqcio
cvlilebebiT da zogierTi muxlis gadamuSavebiT proeqti miRebul iqna.
1920 wlis 8 maisis sxdomaze didi kamaTi gamoiwvia p. sayvareliZis proeqtis me-8
muxlma: `yvela umciresobis erovnul skolebSi, sadac swavleba bavSvTa dedaenaze
iwarmoebs sazogado samoswavlo programis farglebSi, saxelmwifo enis swavleba
savaldebuloa~.
aseTi formulirebis winaaRmdeg gamovida l. naTaZe. misi azriT: a) am muxlSi
unda yofiliyo mxolod ufleba da ara valdebuleba an iZuleba – `konstituciaSi...
mxolod ufleba unda iyos~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 137); b) dawyebiT
saswavleblebSi swavleba usaTuod dedaenaze unda yofiliyo. esaa pedagogikis ele-
mentaruli moTxovnileba: `Zveli reJimis politika am udides princips ebrZoda da
Cven ki am politikas vebrZodiT~; g) kerZo saswavleblebSi ar SeiZleba savaldebu-
lod gaxdes saxelmwifo enis swavleba, radganac am saswavleblebze ar ixarjeba
saxelmwifo fuli. l. naTaZis sityviT, saxelmwifo enis swavleba unda dawyebuliyo
dawyebiTi skolis momdevno safexurze (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 137).
k. jafariZe daeTanxma naTaZes, oRond aRniSna, rom saxelmwifo ena kerZo saswav-
leblebSic unda iswavlebodes da amiT àra marto Cven interesebs, aramed moswav-
leTa interesebsac vicavT~. g. gvazavam piriqiT, daicva proeqtis redaqcia. misi
TqmiT, muxlSi garkveviT iyo aRniSnuli is, rom swavleba dedaenaze swarmoebs da
isic, rom saxelmwifo enis swavleba savaldebulo unda iyos ( scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1,
saq. 180, furc. 137).
18
Tavis formulirebas icavda p. sayvareliZec, romelmac aRniSna, rom `konstitu-

cia movaleobac aris da uflebac; saxelmwifo enisaTvis konstituciaSi usaTuod
unda iyos erTgvari kalapoti, uamisod mas aravin ar Seiswavlis~ (scssa, f. 1833,
aRw. 1, saq. 180, furc. 138).
sabolood, kenWisyris Sedegad gaimarjva Cxenkelis winadadebam, romelmac ganacx-
ada, rom `marTalia konstitucia valdebulebacaa, magram am muxlSi marto uflebeb-
ze SeiZleba laparaki~. amitom saxelmwifo enis moxsenieba aq, misi azriT, mizanSewo-
nili ar iqneboda. a. Cxenkelis formulirebis mixedviT muxli Semdegnairad Camoya-
libda: èrovnuli umciresobis skolebSi swavleba warmoebs bavSvTa dedaenaze~.
me-9 muxlTan dakavSirebiT komisiam erTxmad gamoTqva azri, rom igi gadamuSave-
bas saWiroebda. 10 maisis sxdomaze p. sayvareliZem warmoadgina erT muxlad gaerTi-
anebuli me-9 da me-10 muxlebi: àdgilobrivi TviTmmarTvelobis farglebSi, sadac
erTi romelime erovnuli umciresoba aRemateba yvela moqalaqeTa 20%-s, am erovnu-
li umciresobis moTxovniT msjeloba da saqmis warmoeba saxelmwifo da sazogado-
ebriv dawesebulebebSi SemoRebul unda iqnes saxelmwifo enasTan erTad mis dedae-
nazec~.
m. rusiam moiTxova es muxlebi kvlav cal-calke SeetanaT konstituciaSi, rad-
gan me-9 muxli gulisxmobda iseT adgilebs, sadac umravlesobas Seadgenda erovnu-
li umciresoba, xolo me-10 iseT adgilebs, sadac is umciresobaSi iyo (scssa, f.
1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 229).
s. jafariZe eTanxmeboda muxlis ZiriTad debulebas, rom demokratiul saxel-
mwifoSi, Tu umciresoba 20%-s Seadgens romelime teritoriul erTeulSi, mas `neba
unda hqondes misTvis gasageb enaze xdebodes saqmis warmoeba~. magram, s. jafariZis
azriT, es unda dafiqsirebuliyo rogorc ufleba moqalaqeTa mier TavianTi kerZo
saqmeebis mSobliur enaze warmoebisa, dawesebulebaTa `buRalteria~ ki saxelmwifo
enaze unda muSaobdes. man warmoadgina aRniSnuli muxlis Sesabamisi redaqcia: ìm
adgilebSi, sadac erTi romelime umciresoba aRemateba yvela mcxovrebTa 20%-s da
romlis mSobliuri ena aris araqarTuli ena, aseTi umciresobis wevris saqme, Tu is
isurvebs, warmoebs saxelmwifo da sazogadoebriv dawesebulebebSi mis enaze. amave
wesiT xdeba msjeloba sasamarTlosa, erobisa, Temis sxdomebze~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw.
1, saq. 181, furc. 229).
kenWisyriT miiRes p. sayvareliZis redaqcia.
proeqtis me-11 muxli: `garda saxelmwifo enisa, erovnuli umciresobis enis
codna savaldebuloa adgilobrivi mmarTvelisa da mosamarTlisaTvis~ komisiam
mTlianad amoSala. gamoiTqva mosazreba, rom `praqtika gamonaxavs gzas TavisTavad~
da `meqanikurad ganxorcieldeba am muxliT nagulisxmevi garantia~. amdenad, misi
Setana konstituciaSi saWirod ar miiCnies.
didi kamaTi gamoiwvia p. sayvareliZis proeqtis me-12 muxlma: èrovnul umcire-
sobisaTvis kanonebi unda iTargmnebodes senatTan daarsebul sagangebo komisiis mi-
er da unda egzavnebodes TviTmmarTvelobebs adgilobriv gamosaqveyneblad~. p. ge-
leiSvilis gancxadebiT, am muxlis ZaliT kanoni 16 enaze gaxdeboda saTargmni, rac,
misi azriT, sruliad ganuxorcielebeli iyo.
l. naTaZem aRniSna, rom yvela enaze Targmna SeuZlebelia, magram umciresobis
raodenobis mixedviT kanoni òr-sam enaze unda gadaiTargmnos~. s.jafariZemac miu-
TiTa, rom: `Tu gvinda xalxma sisworiT gaigos da icodes kanoni, igi unda iTar-
gmnebodes zogierT enaze mainc~. misi azriT, es unda yofiliyo somxuri, TaTruli
da rusuli enebi.
aRniSnuli muxlis amoSla moiTxova s. kediam: `xalxisTvis kanoni yovelTvis ga-
ugebari rCeba; es mcire wris sakuTrebaa, amitom muxli amoiSalos~. ganxilvis Sede-
19
malxaz macaberiZe
gad p. geleiSvilma azri Seicvala da ganacxada, rom: `zogierT enaze marTla unda
iTargmnebodes kanoni~, magram es unda momxdariyo, misi TqmiT, umciresobis procen-
tis mixedviT. p. sayvareliZemac daicva me-12 muxli da xazi gausva mis politikur
mniSvnelobas: ès muxli did STabeWdilebas moaxdens da saSiSi araferia; unda
iyos, rasakvirvelia, uwyebuli procenti~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 230).
kenWisyris Sedegad gadawyda, rom kanoni unda iTargmnebodes. amis Semdeg daisva
sakiTxi, Tu ris mixedviT unda momxdariyo es _ erovnuli umciresobis procentuli
raodenobis mixedviT, Tu erovnebaTa dasaxelebis gziT. l. naTaZem aRniSna, rom
procentis dawesebis SemTxvevaSi `kanoni iTargmneba iseT enaze, romelzec Targmani
saWiro ar aris. mag., berZnulze, osurze da sxv. (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc.
230). amitom, misi azriT, pirdapir unda daesaxelebinaT sami erovneba _ somxebi,
TaTrebi (azerbaijanelebi) da rusebi.
amis winaaRmdeg gamovida m. rusia da miuTiTa, rom: `zogierT erovnebaTa dasaxe-
leba sruliad uxerxuli iqneba~ da es ukmayofilebas gamoiwvevda. sabolood, ga-
dawyvites, rom konstituciaSi am sakiTxis garkvevisaTvis Tavi aeridebinaT da me-12
muxli miiRes Semdegi redaqciiT: `kanonis gamoqveynebis wesi erovnul umciresoba-
TaTvis ganisazRvros calke kanoniT~.
sakamaTo gaxda p. sayvareliZis proeqtis ukanaskneli, me-13 muxlic: àraqarTvel
deputats, romelmac saxelmwifo ena ar icis, SeuZlia parlamentSi sityva warmo-
Tqvas dedaeniT~. s. kediam moiTxova am muxlis amoSla, radganac `deputatma saxel-
mwifo ena unda icodes~. l. naTaZem, piriqiT, moiTxova muxlis datoveba, radgan es
ùmciresobis garantiaa da ara pirovnebisa~; s. jafariZemac aRniSna am muxlis `me-
tad didi mniSvneloba~, amave dros ki, misi azriT, praqtikulad àraviTari uxerxu-
loba~ ar Seiqmneboda, radganac àrc erTi deputati araqarTulad ar ilaparakebs~.
p. sayvareliZem moiTxova muxlis datoveba. SeiZleba igi marTlac `mkvdari mux-
li~ aRmoCeniliyo, magram, misi gancxadebiT, `Sig aRiarebul uflebas didi mniSvne-
loba aqvs~. komisiam aRniSnuli muxli ucvlelad datova. amave dros uaryo me-12 da
me-13 muxlebisaTvis p. sayvareliZis mier gaTvaliswinebuli SeniSvna, rom es ori
muxli TavisTavad unda gauqmebuliyo àm konstituciis ZaliT mowveul pirveli
parlamentis vadis gasvlisas~.
l. naTaZem moiTxova erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis proeqts damateboda mis
mier SemuSavebuli ori muxli: 1. `TviTmmarTvelobis erTeulebis gansazRvra unda
ise xdebodes, rom TiToeuli maTganis mosaxleoba SeZlebisamebr erTi erovnebisa
iyos~ da 2. èrovnul umciresobaTa organoebs unda ufleba mieniWoT, Suamdgomlo-
ba aRZran saTanado dawesebulebaTa winaSe TviTmmarTvelobis erTeulebis sazRvre-
bis Secvlis Sesaxeb, erovnul umciresobaTa saWiroebis mixedviT~. komisiam, azrTa
gacvla-gamocvlis Sedegad, uaryo l. naTaZis damatebiTi muxlebi.
1920 wlis maisSi, rodesac sakonstitucio komisia erovnul umciresobaTa ufle-
bebis Sesaxeb konstituciis Tavis SemuSavebas amTavrebda, konstituciis SemuSavebis
mdgomareobis Sesaxeb imsjeles saqarTvelos social-demokratiuli partiis cen-
tralur komitetSi, sadac moxsenebebiT gamovidnen sakonstitucio komisiis wevrebi
social-demokratiuli partiidan.
ck-is 21 maisis sxdomaze ganixiles erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebi. momxsene-
belma l. naTaZem aRniSna, rom saqarTveloSi 15 erovnuli sabWo moqmedebda, romel-
Tagan bevri sajaro uflebebs moiTxovda. gaerTianebis uflebas religiis mixedvi-
Tac moiTxovdnen. l. naTaZis daskvniT: àseTi kavSiris mxaris daWera, rasakvirve-
lia, reaqciuli iqneboda~ da miuTiTebda, rom erovnuli umciresobani enis mxriv
unda SeerTdnen. am TvalsazrisiT, mxolod rusebi iyvnen `garkveulni~. rac Seexeba
qarTvel ebraelebs, maT `rogorc eniT Cvenianebs, qarTvelebTan undaT yofna~. sabo-
20
lood l. naTaZem daaskvna: èrovnuli sabWoebi unda iyos ubralo kavSirebi. saxel-
mwifom iseT kavSirebs unda dauWiros mxari, romlebic gamoadgebaT kulturis gan-
saviTareblad da ara reaqcionur kavSirebs~ (scssa, f. 1825, aRw. 1, saq. 129, furc. 36).
am sakiTxze meore momxseneblis, a. Cxenkelis gamosvla da kamaTi meore dRisaT-
vis gadaitanes. garda amisa, noe Jordaniam winadadeba wamoayena mTlianobaSi gacno-
bodnen proeqts da emsjelaT mis zogad principebze: `ra Sinaarsisaa saerTo prin-
cipi, razedac damyarebulia konstitucia. es aris saintereso, konstituciis kanon-
proeqti mgoni dasrulebuli unda iyos da saWiroa gavecnoT~. ck daeTanxma am wina-
dadebas da daadgina: `komisiam konstitucia Savad Sedgenilad CaTvalos. daabeWdi-
non sawer manqanaze da ecnobos centraluri komitetis prezidiums, rom ganxilvis
dRe daniSnon~ (scssa, f. 1825, aRw. 1, saq. 129, furc. 36).
centraluri komitetis 22 maisis sxdomaze a. Cxenkelma aRniSna, rom èrovnul
umciresobaTa proeqtebi undoblobas Seicavs Cveni respublikisadmi~ da amitom `maT
proeqtebs ar unda davemyaroT~. momxsenebelma xazi gausva, rom sakiTxis gadawyve-
tis dros amosavali unda iyos saxelmwifos interesebi _ `yvelaferi unda mieceT,
rac SesaZlebeli iqneba da saxelmwifos ar avnebs~ (scssa, f. 1825, aRw. 1, saq. 129,
furc. 39). a. Cxenkelis azriT, rogorc kavSirebs `maT TavisTavad sajaro uflebebi
eqnebaT~, magram miuReblad miaCndaT `gadasaxadebis iZulebiT gawerisa da sxva ase-
Ti uflebis micema~.
n. Jordaniam ar gaiziara a. Cxenkelis debuleba, rom: èri uflebis subieqtia da
aseTi uflebis gamomxatveli organo mivceTo~. man aRniSna, rom adre TviTon iyo
amis momxre da es ruseTisa da avstro-ungreTis konkretul pirobebSi swori da sa-
Wiro iyo, radganac erebi `CaWedili iyvnen~ am qveynebSi da `gasaqani ar hqondaT~.
n. Jordaniam xazi gausva, rom saqarTveloSi sruliad gansxvavebuli pirobebi iyo.
èxla aq erovnuli umciresobebi nawili da mcireni arian, mTeli ki _ sxvagan, res-
publikis gareSe. am patara erebis naWrebs sxvagan aqvT politikuri da kulturuli
centri~ (scssa, f. 1825, aRw. 1, saq. 129, furc. 39).
n. JordaniasaTvis amosavali ukve saqarTvelos saxelmwifoebrivi interesebia.
man aRniSna, rom ruseTis imperiaSi marqsistebi roca moiTxovdnen patara erebisaT-
vis did uflebebs, kidevac rom miecaT, patara erebi `mainc verafers daaklebdnen
ruseTs, rogorc did saxelmwifos~. saqarTvelosTvis ki aseTi ram damRupveli iqne-
boda: `Cven patara saxelmwifo varT, aq ki 16-mde natexi erebia. amdeni xalxi rom sa-
jaro uflebebiT aRvWurvoT, isini ufro didi centri Seiqmnebian Cvens respublika-
Si~ (scssa, f. 1825, aRw. 1, saq. 129, furc. 37). n. Jordania miuTiTebda, rom èrovnuli
umciresoba demokratiul qveyanaSi~, rogoric saqarTveloa, sadac `miT umetes so-
cialistebi arian marTva-gamgeobaSi~, mainc ar iqneboda daCagruli.
n. Jordaniam moiTxova erovnul umciresobaTa gansaxlebis raionebSi naciona-
luri Temebis Seqmna, rac arsebiTad nacionalur-teritoriuli kavSiri iqneboda da
maT kulturul ganviTarebasac Seuwyobda xels. `wineT kantonalur sistemas vam-
bobdiT, exla ki Temuri sistema ajobebs maTTvisac da saxelmwifos interesebic
daculi iqneba. aseT gapneul ers, romelsac Temebi ara aqvs, mas eqneba erovnuli
kavSiri~ (scssa, f. 1825, aRw. 1, saq. 129, furc. 37).
p. sayvareliZem aRniSna, rom sakonstitucio komisiaSic didi dava iyo imis Sesa-
xeb `miecaT Tu ara~ erovnul kavSirTaTvis sajaro uflebebi da `komisiam es kiTxva
didxans ver gadawyvita~. sayvareliZem antidemokratiulad miiCnia zogierTis moTx-
ovna – `CvenSi aq yvela erebs yvelafris Tavisufleba unda mieceTo~. erovnuli kav-
SirebisaTvis sajaro uflebebis miniWebis winaaRmdeg gamovida l. naTaZec da mxari
dauWira èrovnuli Temebis gamoWras~. sabolood, miiRes Semdegi dadgenileba: `1.
nacionalur-teritorialur Temebs mieceT ufleba, SekavSirdnen swavla-ganaTlebis
21
malxaz macaberiZe
da, saerTod, kulturul saqmeebisaTvis. saxelmwifo maT daexmareba. 2. maTi erov-

nul-kulturuli moTxovnilebebis dasakmayofileblad saxelmwifo iRebs Tanxas
aranakleb rogorc erovnul umciresobisaTvis. wesi Tanxis miRebisa isazRvrebodes
kanoniT. 3. im kavSirebs, romelTac ar SeuZliaT TemebSi moxvdnen, eqnebaT calke
kavSiri~ (scssa, f. 1825, aRw. 1, saq. 29, furc. 38).
sakonstitucio komisiis 1920 wlis 22 maisis sxdomaze p. sayvareliZem moiTxova,
rom konstituciis proeqtSi SeetanaT damateba, romlis mixedviTac erovnul kavSi-
rebs ufleba eZleodaT iuridiul pirad gamxdariyvnen. mas mxari dauWira a. Cxen-
kelma, romlis azriTac es damateba Semdegi redaqciiT unda Camoyalibebuliyo: `na-
cionaluri kavSiri sargeblobs iuridiuli piris pirovnebis uflebas~. mas ar dae-
Tanxma g. gvazava, romelmac aRniSna, rom sazogadod kavSiris wesdebebi mTavrobas
unda warudginon dasamtkiceblad da `mTavrobas aq unda hqondes sruli Tavisufle-
ba sakiTxis gadaWrisaTvis~. k. jafariZis azriTac, kulturis saqmeebSi aseTi ufle-
ba dasaSvebi iqneboda, magram `kandidatma an erovnulma kavSirma mTeli qalaqi Seis-
yidos – es miuRebeli mdgomareobaa~. sabolood, sakonstitucio komisiam mxari dau-
Wira s. jafariZis formulas: èrovnul kavSirs SeuZlia gaxdes iuridiul pirad,
Tanaxmad saerTo wesebisa~ (scssa, f. 1833, aRw. 1, saq. 181, furc. 248).
amiT daasrula sakonstitucio komisiam konstituciis proeqtis me-17 Tavis èro-
vnul umciresobaTa uflebebis~ SemuSaveba. damfuZnebelma krebam mxolod umniSvne-
lo cvlilebebi Seitana masSi. rodesac 1921 wlis Teberval-martis omi daiwyo, sa-
qarTvelos damfuZnebeli kreba konstituciis ganxilviT iyo dakavebuli, mis miRe-
bas gazafxulisTvis apirebdnen, Semodgomaze ki, savaraudod, axali konstituciis
safuZvelze saparlamento arCevnebi Catardeboda. magram saqarTvelos aRar dascal-
da damoukidebeli saxelmwifoebrivi arseboba. qveyana didi xniT moeqca bolSeviku-
ri reJimis mmarTvelobis qveS, romlis èrovnuli politikac~ sabWoTa saxelmwifos
interesebs emsaxureboda da romlis Sedegebsac saqarTvelo postsabWoTa period-
Sic imkis.
MALKHAZ MATSABERIDZE
ELABORATION OF THE 1921 CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA AND

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE NATIONAL MINORITIES
Summary
The founding fathers of the 1921 Constitution of Georgia acknowledged the existence of close ties between the
interests of the state and national minorities and tried to harmonize them. They sought for the formation of a democ-
ratic decision of the national issue through the Constitution.
The determination of rights of the national minorities was considered within the framework of the concept of
nation-state and through the priorities of its interests. The national minorities were ascribed some broader rights for
the free development, under conditions of “non-violation of the interests of the nation-state” .
The five main types differentiated among the projects offered by the representatives of the national minorities
to the Constitutional Commission were: 1. A national minority did not look for any peculiar rights (Georgian Jews);
2. Concrete demands of insignificant nature; 3. Cultural-confessional autonomy (Muslims of Eastern Georgia); 4.
Cultural autonomy (Russians, Armenians, Greeks, non-Georgian Jews); 5. Cultural and territorial autonomy (Os-
setians).
The following aspects could be grasped among the demands of the representatives of the national minorities: 1.
To set priority on their own ethnic group as compared to others; 2. Contradictions between different political forces
of various ethnic groups; 3. In some cases – mistrust towards the newly-born Georgian state.
22
While determining the constitutional rights of the national minorities, the Constitutional Commission consid-
ered the following claims as unacceptable: 1. Ascription of some peculiar rights to any national minority; 2. Differ-
entiation of the citizens of Georgia on the basis of their nationalities (this was demanded by some representatives of
the National Council); 3. Forcible inclusion of citizens in national unions, as it was considered undemocratic; 4.
Ascription of the so-called public rights to National Unions (for example, the setting of mandatory taxes and their
collection), being the function of the state.
The disputes and discussions over the possibility of ascribing public rights to national unions, which took place
during the elaboration of the Constitution, are represented in the paper as well. It was considered to be a threat for
the unity of the state.
The founders of the 1921 Constitution considered the rights ascribed to national minorities by the constitution
to be “unprecedented and unique for any constitution”. At the same time, they totally neglected the formulations
conducive to “building a state within a state”.
23
INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF HISTORY AND HISTORY

TEACHING IN POST-SOVIET GEORGIA
The paper aims to analyze history teaching conceptions and national history textbooks in post-Soviet
Georgia. In accordance with different challenges Georgian society has been facing during this period, they
represent different visions of strategies, objects and aims of history teaching. Some important aspects, such as
national idea, ethnic minorities, post-Soviet conflicts and other issues, are reflected in different ways as well.
During the last several decades, history lost its reputation as a holder of “truth” about the past. It is in-
creasingly viewed as an interpretation which is changing according to the political circumstances and ideolo-
gies. Different versions of the same historical periods and events existing not only in diverse societies but also
within the same society have become one of the main concerns of studies . The issue of interrelation between
these versions and political and ideological conditions is stressed. Thus, the problem of instrumentalization of
history is brought into the foreground.
Since history is considered as a subject of manipulation, its important role in the formation of collective
consciousness is pointed out permanently. History is an essential part of people’s everyday life and, at the
same time, it represents a powerful instrument of legitimation in the hands of political leaders.
Conceptions of history teaching and textbooks created on their basis represent one of the most important
tools for shaping collective historical consciousness. In social sciences and humanities textbooks are no longer
considered as a mere collection of objective knowledge. According to Hanna Schissler, there is an inevitable
political dimention to what knowledge is being imparted in school books. What a society believes should be
handed on to the young as part of their historical consciousness can be extracted from textbooks (Schissler
1987: 26). As Howard Mehlinger states, none of the socialization instruments can be compared to textbooks
“in their capacity to convey a uniform , approved, even official version of what youth should believe” (Meh-
linger 1985: 287) The information presented in the textbooks is often used as an ideological instrument for the
legitimization of existing political and social order. It is also noted that “History textbooks communicate a con-
temporary past, one which matches the prevailing social and political needs.” “Textbooks manifest the mass
historical transmission of a historical knowledge from one generation to another. … They represent a point of
social negotiation between different groups whose prime concern is passing down to students a common past
for a mutual future” (Porat 2001: 49, 51). At the same time, it should be taken into consideration that concep-
tion of history as a narration of the past as well as of history as a science and school subject is created within
the wide context of cultural values. For that reason, Jane J. White states that we should be careful not to adopt
… the notion that purely objective forms of knowledge can be constructed in textbooks, that is not constrained
by time or place nor by values or beliefs of the culture within which it is written. Textbooks are not neutral
pipelines across the ages that link present-day students with events as they ‘really’ happened (White 1988).
“The idea of historical education being essentially one of “cultural transmission” remained very strong in the
eyes of many politicians and policymakers.” (Haydn 2004: 89)
In the last quarter of the twentieth century the different rationale for school history emerged, “which re-
flected a change of thinking about what qualities “good citizens” need to have and the ways in which history
might contribute to these. There was a move toward taking into account the needs of pupils, their interests and
their disposition towards learning. The transmission of a comprehensive historical “canon” was seen as less
important than the ability to learn new skills and understandings in the context of the perceived need for flexi-
ble, adaptable learners living in a modern information society. There was a move away from history teaching
for the transmission of values and toward education for intellectual autonomy. … Thus, there was a move to-
wards a more critical and detached approach to the national past, which put more emphasis on history as a
form of knowledge, with its own particular disciplinary procedures and methods” (Haydn 2004: 89-90).
In this regard, the interrelation between collective memory and history is a subject of great importance. It
is noted that “one goal (of history) is the perpetuation of an understanding of the past that will enforce the na-
24
INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF HISTORY AND HISTORY TEACHING IN POST-SOVIET GEORGI
tional memory. French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs used the term “collective memory” to refer to a recon-
struction of the past that provides the group with a self portrait that unfolds through time. Through education,
Social interaction, media and other forms of communication, the past is constructed and reconstructed to pass
on a commonly meaningful past to the citizenry. The memory as a story about the past helps the group under-
stand its present situation and endure over time as a cohesive and united group (Halbwachs 1992).
Historians have a different approach to the past; they centre their efforts on history aims at a better under-
standing of the past through analysis and interpretation of sources and social circumstances.
As Dan Porat puts it, while memory sees events from a single vantage point, history exposes multiple per-
spectives. History emphasizes with protagonist’s dilemmas while memory centers on results. History contex-
tualizes while memory disregards context. While history embraces complexity and ambiguity, memory stands
for simplicity and straightforwardness. For history past is distinct from present; while for memory the only
significance of the past is in the present. It may seem that history and memory stand opposite … but they over-
lap in some ways. David Lowenthall states that “memory” includes second-hand accounts of the past – that is
history; “history” relies on eyewitnesses and other recollections – that is, memory… history and memory are
distinguishable less as types of knowledge than in attitudes toward that knowledge… just like memory, history
is affected by changing conceptions of the present. Any distinction between the two constructs is therefore
blurry” (Porat 2001: 37-38).
Now, let’s pass on Georgia’s case. In the 1990s, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, among the main
problems of the Republic of Georgia were: building an independent state, setting new orientations and
(re)constructing national identity. In this regard, all answers to all questions are thought to be found in history.
In the Soviet times, until the period of Perestroika, the main place in history school curriculum was devoted to
the history of the Soviet Union, while scopes of national histories were reduced to a minimum. In post-Soviet
Georgia, as opposed to the Soviet times, national history became the central concern. As it characterizes hard
periods of transition, uniqueness of the national culture and history became a very sensitive issue. As Oliver
Reisner puts it, “Even if culturally a nation indeed existed, this simply does not suffice to establish a basic po-
litical consensus for the society as a whole.” In such circumstances historical and cultural arguments were used
as a means of conducting political controversy (Reisner 1998: 415). The ethnic conception of history created in
the 19th century re-emerged. In such kind of representation of history no place was left for ethnic minorities,
which resulted in their marginalization.
In this period, it became necessary to elaborate a new history curriculum for secondary schools, which
would correspond to the interests and needs of the society in the phase of (re)formation of the new state and
nation.
After gaining independence, the educational reform in Georgia was implemented in two stages. At the first
stage, in 1997 a new curriculum for the school subject “History of Georgia” was adopted. In accordance with the
law on Education, the National Educational Standard in the History of Georgia establishes the main principles of
history teaching and defines the minimal knowledge of the subject. The Standard and textbooks written on its bases
represent the documents which allow us to identify what kind of history was offered to pupils, was it a form of
knowledge, with its own particular disciplinary procedures and methods or a story about the past, as a memory
which provides the group with a self portrait that unfolds through time and reinforces collective identity.
In the Standard itself, in its introduction, the authors pointed out the influence that state ideologies have
on the history teaching conceptions. In this case, the example of the Soviet period was brought, when history
teaching was used as a tool for the justification of the Soviet regime. The new educational Standard, as op-
posed to the Soviet one, tried to elaborate such a conception of history teaching which would correspond to the
political orientation of the post-Soviet Georgia. According to the Standard, ”For present-day Georgia only
such model of historical education is relevant which corresponds to the perspectives of complete democratiza-
tion of the country and contributes to the rise of … political, cultural, religious … tolerance in pupils” (Stan-
dard 1997: 5) One of the main aims of the Standard was to create a history teaching conception which would
meet international, namely Western standards. Consequently, the emphasis was made on “pluralistic-
alternative teaching of history”, which was rejected in the ideologized Soviet programs for the school subject
history. In line with these efforts, the emphasis is not only placed on gaining historical knowledge, equally as
important is learning to think and to raise the skills and capacities of school pupils to the level more compara-
ble to international standards.
25
KETEVAN KAKITELASHVILI
However, the content of the Standard did not correspond to its declared values and principles. Enormous
factual material given in a positivist tradition does not contribute to the development of critical and independ-
ent thinking. Moreover, according to the Standard, the only aim of presentation of alternative perspectives is to
achieve historical truth. As it is noted, “there might be different perspectives on the same historical fact but
only one of them is true” (Standard 1997: 31).
Textbooks were based on the single narrative as well. The presented information does not provoke pupils
to think independently, to analyze and interpret. The emphasis was made on the learning as many facts, events,
dates and names as possible. No alternative vision and possibility of different interpretations was given. Be-
sides, the context in which national history is presented was narrowed almost to the national borders, which
imposes the idea of uniqueness of the Georgian nation, its heroic past and its everlasting struggle for freedom
and independence. The way historical events and facts are presented do not allow pupils to keep a distance
with them and raise a question of responsibility of the Georgian nation in the process of making their own his-
tory. This fact helps to create an impression that history is like destiny which lies beyond control. However, it
would be more precise to say that, in some cases, glorious times of the Georgian history are presented as a rea-
sonable consequence of the efforts of the Georgian nation and prominent figures, while hard periods are shown
as a result of unfair destiny “for which individuals hold no responsibility” (Stojanovic 2001: 28-29). In the
Standard we can find such an expression as “destiny of Georgian people” (Standard 1997: 38). It creates an
image of history as something transcendental, and thus eliminates any possibility of critical thinking and
analysis. The Standard, as well as textbooks, put emphasis on the issues which, in fact, are essential for the
(re)construction of national identity and important for meeting actual political interests. For example, the ques-
tion of “autochthony origins of the Georgian people” and the Georgian statehood (Standard 1997: 16). As
Oliver Reisner puts it “Georgia’s statehood” is viewed as a supra-temporal, ahistorical phenomenon, because
today autochthony is used as the primary legitimization for territorial claims to rule” (Reisner 1998: 416). The
ancient origins of the Georgian nation, its centuries-old history and its contribution to world civilization are
emphasized. The term “Georgian civilization” is introduced, which is an obvious attempt to stress the signifi-
cance of Georgian culture. The tone of narration is pathetic and emotional. The politics of rivals towards
Georgian people is described as “hypocritical” and “insidious” opposed by the “heroic struggle” of the Geor-
gian people (Standard 1997: 28, 38).
To sum up, in the 1990s national history textbooks represented history rather as a collective memory aim-
ing at strengthening of national, or more exactly, ethnic identity than history as a science. In this regard, it is
extremely interesting to make comparison with the experience of Israeli textbooks, the authors of which
“avoided students’ analysis of historical sources, or their narration of the events. These textbooks communi-
cated the past in a conclusive manner. Contrary to the goals of the curriculum, the authors didn’t allow stu-
dents to participate in the process of reconstructing a historical event, in developing a historical hypothesis or
in analyzing sources. In the textbooks, the historical material appeared as part of the narrative, as a testimony.
The sources validated the authors ‘true’ account of the past. … The authors frame the historical event from one
vantage point, the one that, because of its monolithic nature, could help create a shared memory in students’
mind” (Porat 2001: 45).
After the “Rose Revolution” fostering civil integration and building civic society have become the de-
clared challenges for Georgia. Focus has been shifted from ethnic to civil identity. The notion of the ‘multieth-
nic Georgian nation’ has been introduced. Accordingly, the conception of history teaching has been changed.
Legitimization of the multiethnic but integrated Georgian state and strengthening civil consciousness have be-
come the main concerns of history teaching. Exclusive version of history was replaced by inclusive one – the
ethnic minorities appeared in textbooks in order to show their participation in the Georgian history and their
role in the building of Georgian state.
In April 2005, Georgia adopted a new law on Education. Among other objectives it envisages the unifica-
tion of teaching history and geography of Georgia, as well as other social sciences throughout the country.
This has led to working out new programs and creating new textbooks covering the above subjects.
The reform of history teaching involves the following goals: establishing a multi-perspective approach;
presenting history as an interpretation; overcoming traditional national discourse; shaping civic consciousness
(inclusion of ethnic minorities in the history of Georgia).
26
INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF HISTORY AND HISTORY TEACHING IN POST-SOVIET GEORGI
According to the National curriculum for the schools of general education, pupils should get information
on political, social, cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity both in Georgia and worldwide. On the basis of that
information, they should be able to analyze the most important historical and geographical phenomena pertain-
ing both to the past and present, as well as determine the common and the distinctive in the course of different
epochs and societies. Pupils should acquire skills and aptitudes of thinking in terms of history: expose the rea-
sons of a historical event independently and analyze its consequences; view historical processes from different
standpoints; explain what brings about the existence of different interpretations of a historical event or person-
ality; correlate and estimate different interpretations; look through historical sources and assess them critically;
compare and analyze historical material (written historical sources, archaeological or ethnographical material,
fiction on history, photography, etc.) (National Curriculum 2008-2009: 60-61). Strengthening of the civil iden-
tity has become the central aim of history teaching. The new conception of history instruction came closer to
the standard according to which “the goals of history teaching should be focused primarily on the development
of critical thinking, of comprehensive understanding of the past and of tolerance to the others” (Kolouri 2001:
22-23).
Despite the large factual material that still remains in the textbook of the “History of Georgia” for the 9th
grade, the content and style of narration have changed remarkably. The tone became more neutral, Georgian
people “lost” their “uniqueness”, heroic pathos almost disappeared, international context was notably widened.
In this regard, the integration of Georgian and World History in some grades played an important role. What is
more important, the attempts made for representing ethnic minorities living in Georgia were insufficient,
though visible. It was done to make it evident that the History of Georgia should not be implied as the history
of exclusively Georgian people.
Another important innovation is that there are some attempts of keeping distance with the historical
events, including those of the 1990s. Georgian people are no more represented as an eternally righteous to-
wards others and as a victim of external forces. The responsibility of the Georgian side is raised even concern-
ing a sensitive and painful issue such as Abkhazian conflict.
Certainly, post-reform textbooks do not represent fully the principles declared in the National Curriculum.
But the main problem is that the achievements of the textbooks are not put into practice either. There are many
reasons for that. One of the most important problems is that of teachers who are mediums between the curricu-
lum and the textbooks, on the one hand, and class, on the other. Until now, not enough efforts have been made
for training teachers according to the new teaching strategies and methods, it makes many difficulties for both
teachers and pupils.
In the Georgian society the reforms implemented in history teaching arose contradictory reaction. The
feedback of the major part of the society, including professional historians, was quite negative. One of the
main arguments of anti-reformists was that the new curriculum and textbooks could neither develop a sense of
patriotism nor strengthen national identity in pupils. Paradoxically, the worry about losing national history was
expressed when several textbooks of the “History of Georgia” containing huge information and sources were
published in 2008. Thus, the main reason for the protest was not the reduction of the historical scopes but the
style of narration and the principle of its teaching.
Major part of the Georgian society is used to the idea that there might be the only true version of history;
the distinction between history and memory is blurry. History is experienced as one’s own affair which matters
here and today. Consequently, history lacks distance and self-reflection.
In fact, in the 1990s, Georgian national history textbooks were designed as instruments for the formation
of the new Georgian nation. The emphasis of the national curriculum and textbooks was on creating a national
collective memory, not on developing critical capabilities.
Definitely, the change of the usual models of thinking is not a smooth process in any society, especially if
it is dictated from above. While many problems of the 1990s remained unsolved (territorial integrity, external
threat, unaccomplished process of the state building, etc.) and Georgia needs to prove its rights, history still
matters as one of the main instrument of legitimization. Consequently, de-politization of the narrative is per-
ceived as an alarming threat to national identity.
27
KETEVAN KAKITELASHVILI
Bibliography
Porat, Dan. “A Contemporary Past: History Textbooks as Sites of National Memory”. International Review of
History Teaching. Vol. 3. Raising Standards in History Education. A. Dickinson, Peter Gordon,
Peter Lee (Eds.). Woburn Press, 2001
Reisner, Oliver. “What can and should we learn from Georgian History? Observations of someone who was
trained in the Western tradition of science”. Internationale Schulbuchforschung 20 (1998)
Reisner, Oliver. “Interpreting the Past – From Political Manipulation to Critical Analysis?”. Caucasus Analyti-
cal Digest. No. 8 Writing National Histories: Coming to Terms with the Past. 17 July 2009
Haydn, Terry. History. Rethinking the School Curriculum. Values, Aims and Purposes. John White (Ed.)
RoutledgeFalmer, 2004.
Podeh, Elie. The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks, 1948-2000, Bergin and Garvey. 2002
Berghahn, Volker R. Hanna Schissler. “Introduction. History Textbooks and Perception of the Past”. Percep-
tions of History. International Textbook Research on Britain, Germany and the United States.
V.R. Berghahn, H. schlissler (eds.) Berg, 1987
Schissler, Hanna. “Perceptions of the Other and Discovery of the Self. What Pupils are Supposed to Learn
about Each Other’s Past”. Perceptions of History. International Textbook Research on Britain,
Germany and the United States. V.R. Berghahn, H. schlissler (eds.) Berg, 1987
Koulouri, Christina. “Introduction. The Tyranny of History”. Teaching the History of Southeastern Europe. C.
Koulouri (ed.).Petros Th. Ballidis & Co. Thessaloniki, 2001
Stojanovic, Dubravka. “History textbooks and Creation of National Identity”. Teaching the History of South-
eastern Europe. C. Koulouri (ed.).Petros Th. Ballidis & Co. Thessaloniki, 2001
Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory. Chicago Press. 1992
Mehlinger, Howard D. “International Textbook Revision: Examples from the United States”. Internationale
Schoolbuchforschung, 7 1985.
White, Jane. “Searching for Substantial Knowledge in Social Studies Texts”. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 16, 2. 1988
National Curriculum for the Schools of General Education, 2009-2010
National Educational Standard in the History of Georgia. P. Lomashvili, S. Vardosanidze, 1997
28
Hripsime Ramazyan, Sona Avetisyan
THE GLOBALIZING WORLD: A DIAGRAM OF NEW IDENTITIES
Introduction
The world has become extremely small, it seems to have become unified/indivisible, common/. For the
first time humanity has been united, consolidated by common image of reality. Such a great number of people
have never before known so much about the rest of the world. Millions of people find themselves thrown
“from their rural life to the planetary dimension”, thanks to satellite television and sun batteries. The whole
world flies at velocity of sound to an uneasy new world” (Martin, Shuman 2001: 33).
However, despite Marshall Makluan’s predictions, the world in no way has become a “global village”,
where real exchange and real understanding would prevail among people. Actually, it becomes obvious how
little in reality the world grows closer within itself in working out universal codes of understanding and soli-
darity, let alone the economic equality. Today, on the contrary, the world is more disunited and, as a result,
separatism and religious fanaticism become hallmarks of time growing more and more popular. The contem-
porary society is more represented as a society of global risks – the planet population increase, coming nearer
to 8 billion, problems of ecology and global warming, and first and foremost hunger and economic poverty of
the third world countries – the planet has become trapped between two powerful contradicting forces:
globalization and disintegration.
Globalization: the main conceptual approaches

The majority of researchers accept that globalization has become a social reality – quite problematic and
changing the picture of the world significantly. The notion of globalization differs in polysemy, thus making it
one of the most disputable issues not only in the theory of international relations but also in all social sciences.
A fundamentally new level of development of information technologies brought to a bigger penetrability
of interstate borders in the contemporary world, thus serving as an argument to many researchers to define
globalization as a process of increasing levels of trans-boundary movements or growing transparency of bor-
ders. The result of this is the growing interdependency of the world, which, as R.Robertson notes, brings to
“the compression of the world and intensification of world consciousness as a whole one: to the concrete
global interdependence and cognition of the global whole in the XX century” (Pefepative Collection 2002: 58).
Making distinctions among the notions of “globalization”, “globalizm” and “universalizm”, J.Rosenau
thinks that any totality of interactions, which has a potential of unrestricted spreading and overcoming the na-
tional borders able to touch any social community in any part of the world, must be considered a process of
globalization. It is a world of a transnational sub-policy, coexisting with the community of states, a world, in
which the political agenda is determined by transnational problems and events, but the priority goes to the
technological measurement of globalization – information and communication technologies. However, as U.
Beck fairly notices further, globalization in this context represents an expansion of transnational spaces and
organizations, and it “depends on the nation-state authority, and the precondition for globalization is, so to say,
the silent permission on the part of the nation-state power.” Differentiating among the terms “globality”,
“global society”, “globalization” and “globalizm”, U. Beck points out that the first one means that whatever
takes place on our planet from now on is not a locally limited event, but is global by its influence on the world
wholly and by its consequences. A “global community” is a community that appears in the fight with global
dangers, one that realizes the commonness of destiny. As to the “globalization”, it is a “dialectic process,
which creates transnational social links and spaces, depreciates local cultures, and promotes the appearance of
the third cultures. In addition, the world community is not a mega-national association absorbing all the na-
29
HRIPSIME RAMAZYAN, SONA AVETISUAN
tional communities, but it is marked with diversity and reluctance towards integration, with a world horizon,
which opens when it is created and is preserved when communicating and acting (Beck 2001: 28-29).
In Francophone literature the equivalent notion for “globalization” is “mondialization”. Some authors use
them as equivalent referring to globalization as to an Anglo-Saxon version of mondialization. Others assume
that the term “globalization” reflects, first of all, the economic dominant of the presently observed changes in
the world development, and it expresses their essence in a more complete and adequate way. As to “mondiali-
zation”, it applies more to spreading uniformity in the sphere of consumption, leisure, culture, social life of
people. Such a great attention to globalization is, first of all, connected with the complication of the world,
emergence of new threats and risks, discrepancy of the very process of globalization. However, most research-
ers of globalization agree that behind the new term there are the far known processes of increase in interdepen-
dency and formation of common world space, which undergo today just quantitative changes and gain differ-
ent shapes. And the supporters of this approach appeal to the processes that took place in the world history and
serve as a proving illustration of their position, e.g. the expansion of The Roman Empire, colonial conquests
which became a consequence of great geographical discoveries, scientific and technological revolutions, etc.
Moreover, there is not so much economic convergence taking place on our planet, as there is the unifica-
tion of certain rules of game, provision of transparence of the economic space, establishment of the worldwide
financial, communication and information net, as well as debugging an effective system of global control over
the world profit structure and distribution observed nowadays all around the world. Simultaneously goes the
process of forming macro-regional “large spaces” against the background of geo-economic exfoliation of the
world, increase of social-economic coalitions and unions – in other words – a new regionalism is taking shape
(Neclessa 2002: 10).
It is difficult not to agree with John Cavanno’s position from Washington Institute of political researches
who states that “Globalization gave more opportunities to the richest people to make money faster; in fact
globalization is a paradox: giving an immense profit to the miserable minority it leaves two-thirds of the popu-
lation of the planet beyond the frames or makes them marginals” (Bauman 2004: 41).
Globalization: risks and contradictions

The main essence of different and ambiguous approaches to globalization comes forth, as some analysts
suppose, when global market and liberal-democratic culture create a beneficial social basis for achieving har-
monic world order. According to them, liberalism provides the establishment of equality and greater social
justice, whereas globalization is the only way to achieve social and political progress. On the contrary, the op-
ponents of this neo-liberal conception think that in the conditions of globalization national governments stop
being centers of decision-making, everything obeys the spontaneous and unpredictable “all-world” market.
Universal economic, political and socio-cultural laws in the contemporary world become more significant than
national ones. In its turn, it brings both to social disharmony and civil opposition. Thus, Pascal Lami, member
of European Committee, supposes that globalization is a modern, boundlessly developing form of capitalistic
accumulation and interconnection of people on a world scale.
The existing world order of market supremacy, the state role weakening and the ineffectiveness of interna-
tional cooperation do not create the necessary conditions and do not give globalization an opportunity to rule,
that is why it becomes a weal just for “minority“. A supporter of this process regulation by means of active
influence of EU institutes, he suggests building democracy not only in the frames of states, but also in the
“new democratic organization” beyond them. It may be supposed that leveling the role of nation-states and
institutes of the EU in the process of globalization will likely compel the EU leaders to work out their own
conceptions and strategies to impact globalization challenges.
In the postindustrial society globalization is an objective and irreversible process of transference through
the borders not only for production factors – capital, labor force, service – but also for people as carriers of
ideas, traditions, cultural-historical and religious values with the established mindset, disposition and with
vested peculiarities of routine. They are complicated social psychological features of person, which in the
process of integration to a new cultural environment are able to undergo just an insignificant modification,
making the integration process hard and painful.
30
Taking its course irregularly in time and space, the process of globalization opens unprecedented opportu-
nities first of all for global financial elite, which becomes more and more self-sufficient and independent.
Through financial flows, modern technologies and international trade it is able to influence upon national gov-
ernments. Transnational financial capital is subordinated neither to the space limitations, nor to the principles
of ethics. As a consequence, the political and economic strategy of states and regional organizations does not
have enough alternative means for its control (Bauman 2002: 105-106)).
At the same time, globalization differentiates the society within itself, deepening its civil and social strati-
fication. Transnational capital impacts destructively small-scale and middle production in the city and in the
village, shakes local traditions and ways of life, creating this way social and psychological tenseness and in-
stability. A certain number of specialists and intellectuals in the city and in the village appear alienated from
the scientific-technological progress, which paves the way for the civil stratification of the society. As a rule,
this unsettled part of intellectuals fills up the social basis of the radical parties. On the European scale this new
social layer pours into the movement of anti-globalists, which is especially popular in such countries as Aus-
tria, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Norway, Denmark. It is not excluded that in the nearest future it may
become actual in the countries of Eastern Europe as well.
A nutrient medium for anti-globalists are the processes which take place in European countries and reflect
the fragmentation of the community on the national, ethnic and confessional basis. The existing situation is
caused by the intensive migration flows from East to West, from South to North. Europe turned out to face a
complicated problem of integration of migrants, who do not assimilate, and, as a rule, they create their closed
enclaves, corporations, ethnic and religious communities. Many a time it has been proved by events and inci-
dents, like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands or on the outskirts of Paris, that it is extremely complicated to
carry a dialogue between the local population of European countries and migrant communities /quite heteroge-
neous by structure/. The intensive migration flows, gaining a new scope on account of globalization, have
brought to the dissociation of the communities of European countries on the cultural, religious and national
basis, and to the growth of xenophobia and nationalism.
The intensive migration flows from the countries of the “world periphery” practically turn into unseen in
history “scale non-violent influence” on the socio-cultural communities formed in the West. Thus, globaliza-
tion does not at all cause the formation of a really united world. On the contrary, the described processes bring
to the situation when the problem of identity becomes one of the main social problems of the XXI century.
The transformation of identity in the changing world

Up to the middle of the XX century the category of identity was mainly used in the frames of philosophi-
cal discourse. Only in the recent decades it turned out to be in the center of scientific discussions, being treated
in a very general form as a phenomenon of interrelations and “interference” of an individual and a society. As
K. Woodword, an English political scientist notes, “We live in a world, whose basic essence is numerous
forms of identities. They come out both as conceptual, theoretical basis of cognition, and as disputable, con-
troversial circumstances of the present-day political life”(Gilroy 2002: 301). Such is the contemporary state-
ment of the position of ideological innovations, in general, and the universalism of identity problems, in par-
ticular.
In the contemporary world spreading of information gets a global character; the state borders stop influenc-
ing on the movement of information flows. The fast moving trans-border information links are less and less sub-
jected to and controlled by states. The Internet becomes a main channel of spreading. The consciousness of peo-
ple drops out of the influence of the national, political and state institutions. The attempts of restrictions in infor-
mation movement and spreading result in substantial technological lag in those countries which implement the
restrictions. The Internet becomes an agent of social changes. The processes of globalization reflect here in
spreading cultural models, value orientations and preferences, symbols and sign systems, which are represented
as generally significant in the frames of common information-communicative field.
At the same time, the global processes are conceived only in confrontation with the local ones, since there
are simply no global consumers, they are only local ones. Moreover, one of the paradoxes of globalization is
also the fact that the local peculiarities are emphasized today more than ever. The “open society” models are
31
HRIPSIME RAMAZYAN, SONA AVETISUAN
opposed to cultural localism varying greatly in its form. The reverse side of the appearance of the “networked”
world turns out to be the social anomy and marginalization both inside developed countries and on the level of
world order, formation of the stable periphery of informative society. Identity finds itself in the centre of rap-
idly changing and modernizing socio-cultural reality. In the new social reality the problem of identity, as Z.
Bauman notes, is a “problem of choice and ability to make a different choice in time”, if the previous identity
lost its value or got deprived of its “tempting traits” (Bauman 2002: 176-192). Under the influence of necessi-
ties of informative society the transforming society finds itself in a process of seeking a stable socio-cultural
identity. A process of revision and re-estimation of value preferences takes place, as well as mastering of stan-
dards and life styles “universal” for the western civilization consumers.
As a result, under the influence of global processes the transforming socium turns out to be splintered on
the common character of different degree of integration into a global word order. It is, first of all, “the elite
group of “the included” /mainly representatives of leading businesses/ that have wide access to information
and intellectual resources. Then follow the active consumers of “net world” channels, who with their help in-
crease the professionalism, welfare and status positions. These groups have substantial innovative potential,
but they are not numerous and, as a rule, they represent big cities and work in projects side by side with for-
eign partners. The third, most numerous group is formed by passive consumers of global information field.
And, finally, on the side of the road of modernizing processes is a layer of social marginal, estranged even
from primitive models of global consumption (Semenenko 2003: 16).
Thus, in transforming societies takes place the deepening of social and cultural fragmentation, and conse-
quently, spreading of alternative lifestyles and culture models, fixing social alienation at different degrees. The
sphere of influence of traditional means and forms of cultural communication has grown significantly narrow
in the modernizing society, and is still growing.
Ideological reforms, transformations of national and ethno-cultural identity under the conditions of global-
ization and the forming common information space touched most countries of the contemporary world, some-
times regardless of their level of development, national and common to civilizational culture. Today it can be
claimed that profound ideological changes and transformations, cardinal identification shifts and changes in
the value systems are noticeably observed in the majority of developed western countries, first of all in Euro-
pean countries. However, although these changes are united with common evolution dynamics, their quality
and aims, according to analytics, can be diametrically opposite: from drawing nearer cultures and ethnoses to
an explosion of national-religious intolerance and artificially created cultural reservations.
A special concern is aroused by the revival of the segregated communities in the USA and their emer-
gence in Europe. Thus, the “average statistical” white citizen lives today in a region or a settlement where
more than 80% of the population are white, and the “middle-statistic” Afro-American lives in a region where
more than 75% are national minorities. In Europe, the new flows of migrants are directed to those regions,
where the influence of their countrymen is on the highest possible level (in Germany live 80% of all the Turks
settled in Europe, in France – 86 % Tunisians, 61% Moroccans and the same quantity of Algerians.
Thus, the complexity of these processes goes beyond the research of just the problem of identity alone. As
V. Inozemtsev notes, the actuality of these problems is conditioned not only and not mainly by the growth of
ethnic, national and religious pluralism within the western communities, but, first of all, by the fact that this
pluralism gains an aggressive character. It is expressed in the aspiration of “ethno-pluralism” for consolidating
its hold on the principle of social organization, which is distinctly seen in the theory and practice of multicul-
turalism. Moreover, the democratic tools, peculiar to the western society, as the researcher thinks, are unable to
function effectively in segmented society, which consists of different groups and associations that advocate
their ambitions to it. The logics of development compels to observe modern social processes as conditioned
not so much by interaction of separate nation states as by factors and tendencies, fully or partly dropping out of
the sphere of their control. The reverse side of economic globalization in the contemporary age as U. Beck,
one of the most learned researchers of globalization, supposes is cosmopolitization as a social process, i.e. as a
“non-linear dialectic process, in which the common and particular, similar and different, global and local must
be interpreted not as cultural antipodes, but as inseparably linked with each other, complementary and inter-
penetrative principles” (Beck 2006: 72-73).
32
Previously considered irremovable, frontiers and precisely defined identities, as U. Beck supposes, are
really historical exceptions, for in “the all-world society of risk, where national problems can no longer be
solved on merely national basis, what was seen before in indissoluble unity – politics and nation, politics and
state, is divided and transformed today” (Beck 2006: 37-99).
The appearance of new universalism is inevitably accompanied by strengthening of group identities and
growth of influence of the national, ethnical and local factors influencing the society and the politics. On the
other hand, under the conditions of increasing mobility of people, development of communications, intensify-
ing migration, the tendency of wash-out of national identities and the establishment of plurality of identities
takes place at a stable pace. The contemporary world diagram has no analogy in any previous system either by
its scale or by its dynamics. The shape and variety of the development of the global processes become more
and more ambivalent, making the research of globalization and fragmentation processes extremely difficult.
It is commonly thought that only the interdisciplinary method and complete study of the phenomenon of
globalization can objectively assess and answer the challenges of the 21st century, map out possible and desir-
able variants to solve current global problems, keep from unconsidered and unreasonable actions, which may
have irreversible consequences for the humanity. Both the theoretical analysis and the empirical material bring
us to the following conclusion: a new international consensus based on the interests of international commu-
nity is needed.
Under the conditions of increasing interdependence in the world a normal strong international order can
and must be based on the principles of solidarity and constructive interaction for all the members of interna-
tional community. The Humanity faces a serious challenge. And it requires assessing the situation from the
point of view of new thinking, constructing new priorities, new principles of relations between states, indi-
viduals and society, the man and nature, emphasizing the existence of mutual enrichment of various cultures
and religions of the world.
Bibliography
Bauman, Z. Globalization. Consequences for the People and Society. Moscow, 2004
Beck, Ulrich. The Cosmopolitan Vision. Polity Press, Cambridge, 2006
Beck, Ulrich. What is Globalization? Moscow, 2001
Bauman, Z. Individualised Society. Moscow, 2002
Gilroy, P. Diaspora and the Detours of Identity / Identity and Difference. L. 1997
Martin, G. P. Shuman, K. H. The Globalization Trap. Moscow, 2001
Neclessa, A. I. Global Association: Cartography of Postmodern World. Moscow, 2002
Abstract Collection. Part 1. Globalization: Outlines of XXI Century. Moscow, 2002
Semenenko. I. S. Globalization and Socio-Cultural Dynamics: Pesonality, Society, Culture. Polis, 2003
33
Заур Гасымов
ПОЛЬСКИЙ ПРОМЕТЕИЗМ КАК ПРЕДМЕТ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ.

ИСТОРИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЕ ЗАМЕТКИ
Прометеизм (prometeizm) является одной из важнейших идейных концепций, возникших в Польше

в периоде между первой и второй мировыми войнами. Воссоздав в 1918 году утерянную в конце XVIII-
го века независимость Польша стремилась сохранить и усилить собственный суверенитет, главную
угрозу которому польские интеллектуалы видели в соседних державах. Разделенные на два лагеря –
национал-демократы вокруг Романа Дмовского и социалисты-сподвижники Юзефа Пилсудского –
польские элиты опасались в основном Германии и большевистской России. Так называемые эндеки
(группа Дмовского) делали акцент на "немецкую угрозу" и предлагали сотрудничать с Москвой против
Берлина. Лагерь Пилсудского, проведшего несколько лет в сибирской ссылке, видел основную опас-
ность для польской независимости в Советской России. Пилсудскому и его команде удалось придти к
власти в 1918 г. и потом утвердиться в Варшаве в мае 1926 г. Пилсудский – сторонник восточноевро-
пейского федерализма, идеи Ягеллонской Польши как толерантного государства поляков, литовцев,
украинцев, беларусов и других народов – выдвинул идею прометеизма, которая изначально была
связана с идеей польского поэта и мистика Адама Мицкевича. Польша виделась как "Христос наро-
дов", распятый неверными в XVIII-м веке. Согласно прометеизму лозунг Тадеуша Костюшки "За вашу
и нашу свободу" стал вновь актуальным. Польша воспринимала себя как адвокат "прометейских
народов", т.е. нерусских народов бывшей царской империи и СССР. Цель и задачи польского проме-
теизма были сформулированы Пилсудским и его советниками из военных министерств, диплома-
тической (Р. Кнолл, Т. Холувко) и специальной службы (Т. Шецл, Е. Харашкевич) и заключались в
расчленении России по национальному признаку. Это должно было привести к существенному
ослаблению восточного соседа. Польской генштаб спонсировал издание эмигрантской литературы и
периодики в Варшаве (журнал "Всхуд") и Париже (журналы "Ле Промете", "Ревю де Промете"), имел
тесные контакты с украинской и кавказской эмиграцией как в Европе, так и в Турции и даже в Китае.
До 1989 темой прометеизма занималась в основном польская эмиграция в Лондоне, Нью-Йорке и
Париже. Институт имени Юзефа Пилсудского, воглавлавшийся историком, одним из идеологом
прометеизма Бачковским, а также публицисты журнала "Культура", издававшемся Ежи Гедройчем во
Франции публиковали отдельные статьи о польском прометеизме, воспоминания его активистов,
украинских, татарских и прочих эмигрантов, сотрудничавших с прометейскими группами в 1920-30ые
годы. Американско-польский историк Мариан Камил Джевановский опубликовал в 1979 г. книгу о
федералистических концепциях Юзефа Пилсудского, в которой он описывал не только проект
"Междуморье" (Интермаррум), но и прометейские планы маршала (Dziewanowski 1979). Несколько лет
позже другой американско-польский историк Рихард Войтак написал обобщающую статью о польском
прометеизме, которая была опубликована в East European Quaterly (Woytak 1984).
В коммунистической Польше была опубликована лишь одна обширная монография Сергиуша
Микулича "Прометеизм в политике Второй Речипосполитей" в 1971 г (Mikulicz 1976). Микулич разме-
стил в своей книге огромное количество фактов о работе польских служб с украинской, азербайджан-
ской, грузинской, крымско-татарской и туркестанской политэмиграцией, хотя ввиду объективных
причин работа не отображала адекватно эволюцию польского прометеизма как концепции идеи.
Позиция Микулича не отличалась от основного подхода польской историографии времен коммунизма:
Пилсудский и весь период с 1918-го по 1939-ый год изображался исключительно в негативных тонах.
До работы Микулича еще в начале 1960-ых гг. была издана также объемная публикация историка
Левандовского (Lewandowski 1962). Частично касался темы прометеизма Анджей Гарлицкий в своей
работе о политической биографии Юзефа Пилсудского, вышедшей в конце 1980-ых годов на польском,
и в начале 1990-х гг. на английском языке (Garlicki 1995).
34
ПОЛЬСКИЙ ПРОМЕТЕИЗМ КАК ПРЕДМЕТ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ. ИСТОРИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЕ...
После падения коммунизма в Восточной Европе в Польше, а также в России и в бывших респуб-
ликах СССР стали появляться публикации на тему межвоенного периода, а также идеологий того
времени в целом и прометеизма в частности. Конечно же, историки Польши проявляют традиционно
наибольший интерес к теме прометейского течения. В этом контексте следует в первую очередь
упомянуть краковских историков Анджея Новака (Nowak 1995) и Марека Корната (Kornat 2003) – оба
специалисты по истории идей, а также по современной истории Восточной Европы и относятся к
новому поколению польских историков. М. Корнат, защитившийся по внешней политике Второй
Речипосполитой и политической фигуре министра иностранных дел Юзефа Бека (Krnat 2007), посвятил
прометеизму ряд публикаций (Kornat, www.new.org.pl) Особо следует отметить его статьи и интервью
в недавно образованном вроцлавском журнале "Нова Еуропа Всходня" (Nowa Europa Wschodnia)
(www.new.org.pl). Новак и в еще более интенсивно Корнат занимались прометеизмом как внешнеполи-
тической идеей польской элиты в 1920-30ые годы. В свою очередь польские кавказоведы Войчех
Матерски (Materski 1995), Войчех Гурецкий, Мачей Фалковский (Falkowski, http://www.kaukaz.net),
американско-польский историк Тадеуш Швентоховский (Swietochowski 2006) и другие освещали
прометеизм в рамках польско-кавказского политического и культурного сотрудничества, которое
возникло задолго до 1918 г. Многие из этих авторов печатались в основанном в 1991 г. изначально в г.
Лодзь польско-грузинском журнале "Про Георгия" (Pro Georgia1), который переиздал большое
количество документов, источников и мемуаров как представителей кавказской эмиграции, активно
участвовавшей в эволуции польского прометеизма, но также и дал возможность публиковать свои
исследования польским историкам, специализирующимся на прометеизме. Огромный интерес в
контексте представляют публикации и деятельность грузинско-польского историка-византиста Давида
Колбая, преподаватела кавказской истории в варшавском университете. Совместно с историком Яном
Малицким, руководящим кафедрой исследований Восточной Европы (Program Studiów Wschodnich/
Studium Europy Wschodniej UW), Колбая организовывает ежегодные конференции имени Святого
Перадзе2, которые представляют собой важный форум для исследователей прометеизма.
Касательно источниковедения по прометеизму важно отметить переиздание важнейших публи-
каций идеологов прометейского движения в Польше в последнее время. Так краковский "Центр поли-
тической мысли" переиздал в 2000 г. наиболее известные статьи историка-советолога Владимира
Бачковского под общим названием "О восточных проблемах Польши". Издание подготовили молодые
историки Яцек Клочковский и Павел Ковал (Baczkowski 2000). В том же году была издана обширная
публикация об Эдварде Харашкевиче (1895-1975), бывшем сотруднике польской спецслужбы, т. н.
Второго Отдела Генштаба (Oddział II Sztabu Generalnego), специализировавшемся на создании и подде-
ржке контактов с эмигрансткими группами украинцев и кавказцев в Европе. Издание было обработано
историками Анджеем Гжывачем, Марчином Квеченем и Гжегожем Мазуром и содержит оригинальные
тексты отчетов Харашкевича о деятельности прометейских групп (Zbiór dokumentów ppłk 2000).
В России исследованием проблемы прометеизма занимались историки Татьяна М. Симонова (Си-
монова 2002: 47-63) и Лев Соцков (Соцков 2003). Симонова исследовала прометеизм в период с 1919
по 1924 год, т. е. в решающие для Польши годы на базе архивных исследований в Москве. Соцков
фокусировал внимание на освещение сотрудничества представителей народов отдельных республик
СССР с немецкой и польской спецслужбами.
В англо-американских научных кругах исследования прометеизма однозначно связаны с именем
американского историка Тимоти Снайдера, издавшего биографию польского прометеиста, государстве-
нного деятеля и сподвижника Пилсудского, Хенрыка Юзефского в 2005 г. под названием "Штрихи из
1
Полное название журнала Pro Georgia : prace i materiały do dziejów stosunków gruzińsko-polskich.
2
Гиоргий Перадзе (Гжегож Перадзе в польской версии) родился в 1899 г. в Кахетии, покинул Грузию после
советизации в 1921 г. Изучал богословие в Германии, в начале 1930-ых гг. возглавлал грузинский приход в
Париже. В 1934 г. был возведен в ранг архимандрита в Лондоне. В последующие годы участвовал в научных
экспедициях в Болгарии, Греции и Румынии. С 1933 г. Перадзе был профессором патрологии варшавского
университета. В мае 1942 был арестован гестапо и депортирован в концлагерь Аушвиц, где и был убит. В 1995 г.
Перадзе был канонизирован как святой мученник на соборе Грузинской Православной Церкви.
35
ЗАУР ГАСЫМОВ
секретной войны: Миссия польского художника освободить советскую Украину" (Snyder 2005). В 2008
г. монография была переведена на польский язык и издана в Кракове (Snyder 2008).
Исследованием прометеизма занимаются также французско-грузинский историк Гиоргий Мамулия
(Париж) и польская историк-этнолог Светлана Червонная (Торунь) (Czerwonnaja 2003: 109-145). В ряде
статей Мамулия (Mamoulia 2007: 45-85) исследовал тему сотрудничества грузинских и кавказских
эмигрантов с Польшей, Германией, а также ОУН в 1930-40-ые годы. Червонная занимается исследова-
нием участия крымских и казанских татар в польском прометеизме.
Интенсивно освещают прометеизм в Азербайджане. Азербайджанский историк Насиман Ягублу
при финансовой поддержке польского посольства в Баку изучал в Варшаве архивные документы о
деятельности азербайджанской политэмиграции в Польше. Результатом этих исследований стала
монография о политической и публицистической деятельности основателя Азербайджанской Демокра-
тической Республики, Мамедамина Расулзаде (1884-1955) в Польше, которая была издана в Баку в
2007 г (Yaqublu 2007). В сотрудничестве с молодым историком Шахлой Казымовой Ягублу удалось
перевести часть польскоязычных статей Расулзаде, опубликованных в вышеупомянутых журналах
"Всхуд", а также "Рочник татарский", которые были представлены вниманию широких читательских
масс на страницах бакинской периодики (Расулзаде, http://www.zerkalo.az). Темой прометеизма отчасти
занимаются военный историк Шамистан Назирли и литературовед Вилаят Гулиев.
В последнее время изучением прометеизма занимаются и в республиках Средней Азии. Так, казах-
ский филолог Бахыт Садыкова опубликовала в 2009 г. в Алмате монографию о деятельности активиста
туркестанского национального движения Мустафы Чокая в странах Европы (Садыкова 2009).
Итак, как мы видим, тема прометеизма пережила особенно в 1990ые годы период бума
"переизданий" и тенденция роста публикаций все еще сохраняется. Постепенно историки, работающие
над этой темой в разных странах, получили возможность обмениваться мнениями. Местом проведения
основных конференций по этой тематике остается Польша. Важным фактом является также и то, что
основная часть историков, проявляющих интерес к прометеизму – это относительно молодое
поколение специалистов. Таким образом, историография прометеизма "дополнила" общеевропейский
дискурс еще одним идейным движением. Обойти прометеизм стороной, занимаясь анализом польской
внешней политики во время Второй Республики, практически невозможно. Наряду с коммунизмом,
социализмом, евразийством, панславизмом, пантуранизмом и т.д. прометеизм являет собою
европейскую концепцию идеи, которая изучается вот уже полвека как на Западе, так и на Востоке.
Bibliography
Baczkowski, Wł. O wschodnich problemach Polski. Wybor pism, Krakow 2000
Czerwonnaja, Sw. Liga Prometejska Karty Atlantyckiej (z archiwum Dzafera Sejdameta) // Wroclawskie
Studia Wschodnie, 2003, Nr. 7. C. 109-145. (Wydanie 2004 r.)
Dziewanowski, Marian K. Joseph Pilsudski: a European Federalist, 1918-1922. Stanford, 1979
Falkowski, M. Azerbejdżański alfabet czyli notatki z podróży do Azerbejdżanu w lipcu 2002 r., in:
http://www.kaukaz.net/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/polish/azerbejdzan/azerbejdzan_alfabet (29.01.2009)
Garlicki, A. Józef Piłsudski, 1967-1935, Aldershot/Hants 1995
Kornat, M. Bolszewizm, totalitaryzm, rewolucja, Rosja. Początki sowietologii i studiów nad
systemami totalitarnymi w Polsce (1918-1939), Krakow 2003; Kornat, Marcin: Polska szkola sowietologiczna.
1930-1939, Krakau 2003
Kornat, M. Polityka równowagi (1934-1939). Polska między Wschodem a Zachodem. Kraków. 2007
Kornat, M. Swianiewicz, Lenin i totalitaryzm, czyli o użyteczności historii idei
w poszukiwaniu zrozumienia Rosji, Nowa Europa Wschodnia,
http://www.new.org.pl/?module=newspaperarticles&id=12 (05.02.2009); KORNAT M. Ruch
prometejski – waŜne doświadczenie polityki zagranicznej II Rzeczypospolitej, c. 76-86, Nowa
Europa Wschodnia 2/08.
Lewandowski, J. Federalizm, Litwa i Białoruś w polityce obozu belwederskiego. Warszawa. 1962
36
ПОЛЬСКИЙ ПРОМЕТЕИЗМ КАК ПРЕДМЕТ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ. ИСТОРИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЕ...
Mamoulia, G. L’histoire du groupe Caucase (1934-1939), Cahiers du monde russe 48-2007/1

Materski, W. Gruzja, Warszawa. 2000
Materski, W. Polska akcja wojskowa w Gruzji i na Zakaukaziu (1917-1920), in: Instytut Historii PAN (Hg.):
Międzymorze. Polska i kraje Europy środkowo-wschodniej XIX-XX wiek. Warszawa. 1995
Mikulicz, S. Prometeizm w polityce II Rzeczypospolitej, Warszawa 1971. Позже Микулич издал книгу о
роли и месте города Клайпеды в европейской политике между мировыми войнами.
Mikulicz, S. Kłajpeda w polityce europejskiej 1918-1939. Warszawa. 1976
Nowak, A. Polska i trzy Rosje. Studium polityki wschodniej Józefa Piłsudskiego (do
kwietnia 1920 roku), Krakow 2001. Nowak, Andrzej: Jak rozbić rosyjskie imperium? Idee polskiej polityki
wschodniej 1733-1921, Warszawa 1995
Snyder, T. Sketches from a Secret War: A Polish Artist's Mission to Liberate Soviet Ukraine. Yale University
Press. 2005
Snyder, T. Tajna wojna. Henryk Józewski i polsko-sowiecka rozgrywka o Ukrainę. Kraków. 2008
Świetochowski, T./ COLLINS C. B. Historical Dictionary of Azerbaijan. Lanham. 1999.
Świetochowski, T. Azerbejdżan. Warszawa. 2006
Woytak, Richard. The Promethean Movement in Interwar Poland, in: East European Quarterly. Vol. XVIII,
no. 3, 1984
Yaqublu, N. Azerbaycan-Polsa elaqelerinde M. E. Resulzadenin rolu, Baku 2007.
Zbiór dokumentów ppłk. Edmunda Charaszkiewicza (opracowanie, wstęp i przypisy Andrzej Grzywacz,
Marcin Kwiecień, Grzegorz Mazur), Kraków 2000
Расулзаде М. Э. основатель Азербайджанской Демократической Республики,
http://www.zerkalo.az/rubric.php?rid=39&dd=14&mo=2&yr=2009 (07.06.2009)
Садыкова, Бахыт. Мустафа Чокай в эмиграции, Алматы 2009
Симонова, Т.М. Прометеизм во внешней политике Польши.1919-1924 гг. / Новая и новейшая история .
№4, 2002
Соцков, Л. Ф. Неизвестный сепаратизм. На службе Абвера: из секретных досье разведки. М. 2003
www.new.org.pl
37
maia qvriviSvili
identifikaciis procesebi da markerebi eri-saxelmwifoebis

Camoyalibebis xanaSi (saqarTvelo da rumineTi: SedarebiTi analizis cda)
identobis problema Tanamedroveobis saintereso da aqtualur sakiTxTa ricxvs

miekuTvneba. civi omis Semdgom, erTi mxriv, axali politikuri erTeulebis warmo-
Sobisa da, meore mxriv, globalizaciis pirobebSi man gansakuTrebuli aqtualoba
SeiZina.
statiis mizania saqarTvelosa da rumineTSi identobisa da identifikaciis pro-
cesebis SedarebiTi kvlevis SesaZleblobis gansazRvra XIX-XX saukuneTa mijnaze.
rogorc cnobilia, komparativistuli kvleva moiTxovs Sedarebis relevanturi
obieqtebis arsebobas. vfiqrobT, saqarTvelo da rumineTi swored aseTi obieqtebia
ramdenime mizezis gamo: maT Soris aRsaniSnavia xmelTaSuazRvispiruli kulturuli
tipisadmi kuTvnileba, multieTnikuroba da polikonfesiuroba msgavs imperiul
struqturebSi (romauli, bizantiuri, osmaluri, rusuli) da, bolos, totalitaru-
li reJimis pirobebSi cxovrebis gamocdileba. orive SemTxvevaSi, saukuneebis gan-
mavlobaSi, politikur, socialur, ekonomikur da kulturul cxovrebaSi ZiriTadi
da warmmarTveli faqtori marTlmadidebluri qristianoba iyo. garda amisa, sagu-
lisxmoa is faqtic, rom xsenebul periodSi rumineTsa (brZola otomanTa imperiis
da totalitaruli socialisturi reJimis winaaRmdeg) da saqarTveloSi (brZola
ruseTis da, Semdeg, sabWoTa imperiis winaaRmdeg) msgavsi procesebi mimdinareobda _
brZola damoukideblobisaTvis, erovnuli TviTmyofadobis SenarCunebisa da civili-
zebul samyaroSi adgilis damkvidrebisaTvis. saqarTvelo, iseve rogorc rumineTi,
mravalerovani da mravalkulturuli qveyanaa. sainteresoa, ra procesebi mimdinare-
obs aseT sazogadoebebSi, rodesac mTlianad icvleba socialur-politikuri rea-
loba, xdeba axali ideologiis damkvidreba, RirebulebaTaA gadafaseba, axali kul-
turuli markerebis Camoyalibeba, mimdinareobs identobis Ziebis rTuli procesi.
identoba iqmneba da transformirdeba istoriis ganmavlobaSi, igi istoriuli
da socialuri cxovrebis produqtia. identoba procesebisa da struqturebis dinami-
kuri sistemaa, romelic erTdroulad permanentuli konstruqciacaa da aseve SeuZ-
lia stabilur organizaciad Camoyalibeba konkretul drosa da sivrceSi. TiToeu-
li sazogadoeba, TiToeuli jgufi, TiiToeuli individi flobs identobis sakuTar
repertuars, romelic sxvebis Secnobis saSualebas iZleva. SeiZleba moxdes idento-
bis repertuaris Secvla romelime istoriul epoqaSi, rac ganpirobebulia arsebu-
li realobiT, politikuri, socialuri YTu kulturuli faqtorebiT (Schippers).
identobaSi aseve moiazreba adamianisa da sazogadoebis integrirebuloba, maTi
SesaZlebloba TviTgansazRvrisa da pasuxi kiTxvaze: vin var me? vin varT Cven? iden-
tobis politika warmoadgens pasuxs specifikur gamowvevaze. eTnikuri da kulturu-
li identobis Sinaarss Seadgens sxvadasxva saxis eTnosocialuri warmodgenebi,
romlebic, ama Tu im xarisxiT, gaziarebulia mocemuli eTnikuri jgufis wevrebis
mier. es warmodgenebi yalibdeba Sidakulturuli socializaciis da sxvadasxva ga-
re faqtoris zegavleniT. konkretul SemTxvevaSi, am Sexedulebebis mniSvnelovani
nawili warmoadgens saerTo istoriis, kulturis, tradiciis, warmoSobisa da sa-
xelmwifoebriobis gacnobierebis Sedegs.
38
identifikaciis procesebi da markerebi eri-saxelmwifoebis Camoyalibebis xanaSi...
identifikacia SeiZleba iyos realuri an warmosaxviTi, kognitiuri Tu afeqtu-

ri, individualuri Tu koleqtiuri. mas sami mTavari funqcia aqvs: konstruqciuli,
dacviTi da adaptaciuri. konkretuli kultura sakuTari Tavis SegrZnebisa da Sec-
nobisaTvis (Sesabamisad, sxvasTan mimarTebaSi) obieqturi istoriuli realobis gaT-
valiswinebiT arkvevs da iyenebs identifikaciis romelime (ena, teritoria, religia,
zne-Cveulebebi, erovnuli xasiaTi, kultura da aS.) kriteriums, an yvelas erTad.
TviTidentifikaciis procesSi eTnosis warmomadgenlebSi yalibdeba SeTanxmebu-
li azri imaze, Tu romeli niSnebia eTnodiferencirebadi, riTac erTi eTnosi gan-
sxvavdeba meorisagan. aseTad SeiZleba miviCnioT sxvadasxva maxasiaTebeli: ena, Ri-
rebulebebi da normebi, istoriuli mexsiereba, religia, mSobliuri miwisadmi damo-
kidebuleba, miTebi saerTo winaprebis Sesaxeb, erovnuli xasiaTi, xalxuri da pro-
fesionaluri xelovneba (Степаненко 2004: 30).
CvenTvis sainteresoa identobis procesebis dinamika da struqturebis Camoyali-
beba saqarTvelosa da rumineTSi XIX-XX saukuneTa mijnaze mimdinare erovnul-gan-
maTavisuflebeli moZraobisa da socialur-politikuri cvlilebebis fonze. iden-
tobis sakiTxi gansakuTrebiT aqtualuri xdeba gardamaval epoqebSi. XIX saukunis
30-iani wlebidan evropaSi nacionalizmis epoqa dadga. erovnul-ganmaTavisuflebel-
ma moZraobam jaWvuri reaqcia gamoiwvia da mTels evropas (da ara mxolod) talRa-
saviT gadauara. man Tavisi roli iTamaSa mTeli rigi saxelmwifoebis Seqmnasa da
antikoloniuri moZraobebis gamoRviZebaSi (Chabot 1997: 35-36).
XIX-XX saukuneebi arastabiluri, gardaqmnebisa da cvlilebebis xanaa. naciona-
lizmis aRmavloba da gaaqtiureba safrangeTis revoluciis Semdeg iwyeba (Chabot
1997: 11-20). Cndeba eri, rogorc axali cneba suverenitetisaTvis, da igi xdeba umaR-
lesi principi. bevrma erma XIX saukuneSi moaxerxa saxelmwifoebriobis aRdgena,
zogmac es XX saukunis dasawyisSi SeZlo (saqarTvelo), gaCnda axali saxelmwifoe-
bic. bevrma maTganma damoukidebloba maleve dakarga, maT Soris saqarTvelom.
saqarTvelo
XIX saukunis dasawyisidan, kerZod, 1801 wlidan erTmaneTis miyolebiT gauqmda
qarTuli politikuri erTeulebi, romlebic erTiani qarTuli saxelmwifos daSlis
(1476) Sedegad gvian Sua saukuneebSi Camoyalibda (qarTl-kaxeTis, imereTis samefoe-
bi; guriis, svaneTis da afxazeTis samTavroebi). isini uSualod rusuli mmarTvelo-
bis daqvemdebarebaSi gadavidnen da mTlianad rusuli politikuri sistemis nawili
gaxdnen. gauqmda saqarTvelos eklesiis avtokefalia da igi uSualod ruseTis ek-
lesiis sinods daeqvemdebara; oficialuri dawesebulebebidan idevneboda qarTuli
ena, swavla-ganaTleba rusul enaze mimdinareobda, qveyana rusul yaidaze ewyoboda.
msoflio politikuri rukidan gaqra saqarTvelo da mis magivrad gaCnda tfilisis
da quTaisis guberniebi (es saqarTvelos cnebis mexsierebidan aRmofxvris mcdeloba
iyo). ruseTma Tavdapirvelad qveynis politikuri kolonizacia moaxdina, mogviane-
biT ki ekonomikuri da kulturuli, rac bolo dromde, sabWoTa kavSiris daSlamde
gagrZelda. amiT ganxorcielda qarTuli sivrcis (romelic saukuneebis ganmavloba-
Si Camoyalibebuli idea-simboloebiT iyo sakralizebuli) desakralizacia da misi
xelaxali sakralizacia. ruseTma daarRvia misi politikuri, socialuri, religiu-
ri da kulturuli identoba. mTeli XIX saukune mimdinareobda qarTveli eris
brZola damoukideblobis aRsadgenad (1802, 1804-06, 1811, 1812, 1819 wlebis ajanyebebi
da 1832 wlis SeTqmuleba), xolo XIX saukunis 60-iani wlebidan brZolam sxva sib-
rtyeSi gadainacvla. gansakuTrebiT aqtualuri gaxda qarTvelebis da saqarTvelos
39
maia qvriviSvili
adgilisa da rolis Ziebis sakiTxi. sazogadoebriv asparezze gamovidnen aristokra-

tiis wridan gamosuli, evropul ganaTlebamiRebuli qarTveli axalgazrdebi, rom-
lebic axali Rirebulebebis damkvidrebas da tradiciebis Senaxva-aRorZinebas sTa-
vazobdnen qveyanas. isini saTaveSi Caudgnen erovnul-ganmaTavisuflebel moZraobas.
maT kargad esmodaT Seqmnili viTareba. saWiro iyo qveynis, sazogadoebis momzadeba
da axali gamowvevebisaTvis Sesabamisi pasuxis gacema, identificirebis im struqtu-
rebis Seqmna, an Zvelis gaaqtiureba, romelic ers sakuTari Tavis Secnobis da axal
msoflio wesrigSi Tavis damkvidrebis saSualebas miscemda. qarTvelma moRvaweebma
kargad auRes alRo Seqmnil situacias da sworad gansazRvres qveynis winaSe mdga-
ri problemebi da sirTuleebi.
Semdgom cnobili moazrovne da sazogado moRvawe, maSin sruliad axalgazrda
niko nikolaZe werda, rom yvela dros, yvela Taobas Tavisi problebemi da sakeTe-
beli saqme aqvs; axali dro, romelic modis Tavis sirTuleebiTa da siaxleebiT,
bevr sikeTes da borotebas gvTavazobs, mTavaria, rogori momzadebulebi davxvde-
biT mas. am daxvedrazea damokidebuli saqarTvelos momavali adgili civilizebul
samyaroSi. adekvaturi pasuxiT, romelic saukuneebis ganmavlobaSi ukve mravaljer
iqna gacemuli da iseTive tradiciulia, rogorc ena, erovneba da sarwmunoeba (niko-
laZe 1997: 48, 184, 286), man zustad dainaxa sazogadoebis winaSe mdgari gamowvevebi,
kerZod, rom momavali ganviTarebisaTvis saWiroa ara mxolod teritoriuli mTlia-
nobisa da mSobliuri enis dacva, damoukidebloba, aramed adekvaturi ekonomikuri
da socialuri politika, rac garanti iqneba qveynis civilizebul samyarosTan er-
Tad ganviTarebisa.
iakob gogebaSvilis _ imave periodis aseve cnobili qarTveli moRvawis azriT,
nacionaluri erTobisaTvis saWiroa: saerTo warmomavloba, saerTo ena, saerTo
kultura, saerTo sarwmunoeba, saerTo erovnuli gmirebi da erovnuli idealebi.
`qarTvelebSi vxedavT Tu ara aseTsave erTianobasa? oRondac. hyavT yvela qarTve-
lebs, imerebs da amerebs, erTi mamamTavari qarTlosi, erTis tomisani arian, erTs
enaze ubnoben, erTi literatura dahbades, yvelas erovnul geniosebad da talante-
bad miaCniT: rusTaveli, daviT guramiSvili, gr. orbeliani, n. baraTaSvili, a.were-
Teli, i.WavWavaZe, vaJa-fSavela, rafael erisTavi da sxvani, erTis sarwmunoebis mim-
devrebi arian~ (gogebaSvili 1997: 455).
gansakuTrebuli zrunvis sagani iyo mSobliuri enis dacva, mis safuZvelze ga-
naTleba da kulturuli aRorZineba. „deda-ena aris Zvirfasi saunje salaro, rveu-
li, romelSic daculia mTeli simdidre xalxis gonebisa, fantaziisa da gulisa,
nafiqrisa, nagrZnobisa da namoqmedarisa da romlis Seswavla bavSvs akavSirebs mTe-
lis eris sulTan da gulTan, mis xangrZliv istoriuls cxovrebasTan, avsebs mas
sulieris RoniT da mxneobiT“ (gogebaSvili 1997: 396-414.).
dimitri yifiani saubrobda qarTvelTa modgmasa da saqarTvelos teritoriaze:
`...yvela isini (igulisxmeba qarTveluri tomebi), _ farnavazamdeli droidan mikidebu-
li, _ laparakoben erTsa da imave enaze, aRiareben marTlmadideblobas, pmisdeven er-
Tsa da imave sawyisebze aRmocenebul wess samoqalaqo yofa-cxovrebisas“ (yifiani 2002:
7). `qarTuli miwa qarTveli xalxisaTvis mxolod nivTieri Rirebuleba ar iyo, igi
mTeli warsulis simbolos da momavlis sayrdens warmoadgenda. es miwa iyo qarTveli
xalxis yvela imedisa da yvela sasoebis sayrdeni erovnuli saxis SesanarCuneblad~,
aRniSnavda aleqsandre sumbaTaSvili-iuJini (sumbaTaSvili-iuJini 2005: 453).
amrigad, qarTveli inteligenciisaTvis erovnuli cnobierebisa da erovnuli
identobis ganmsazRvrelia: teritoria, ena, saerTo istoria, tradiciebi, kultura,
saerTo eTnikuri warmomavloba – saerTo winapari.
40
rumineTi
SeiZleba iTqvas, rom msgavsi procesebi mimdinareobda rumineli xalxis damou-
kideblobisa da sami ruminuli principatis – vlaxeTis, moldovas da transilvani-
is gaerTianebisaTvis brZolaSi. isini sam imperias – otomanebs, habsburgebs da ca-
ristul ruseTs upirispirdebodnen (Boia 2003). 1821 wlidan, rodesac qveyanam SeZlo
fanariotebis sabolood gandevna (Bulei 2005: 71), iwyeba aqtiuri brZola sami ruminu-
li samTavros – principatis erT saxelmwifod gaerTianebisaTvis. politikur brZo-
lasTan erTad, daiwyo ideologiuri brZolac imis dasasabuTeblad, rom samive er-
Teuli warmoadgens erTi xalxis _ ruminelebis saxelmwifos da rom saWiroa gabne-
uli miwebis da eris SekavSireba. inteligencia (romelic, rogorc saqarTveloSi,
evropuli ganaTlebis iyo), romelic erovnul-ganmaTavisuflebel brZolas edga sa-
TaveSi, iwyebs ruminelis da rumineTis istoriuli Zirebis kvlevas momavali arse-
bobis dasamtkiceblad. iwyeba TviTidentifikaciis saintereso da rTuli procesi,
romelic politikurad xangrZlivi gamodga (Castellan 1984: 27; Bodea 1968: 853). nikola
iorgas TqmiT, ruminelTa gaerTianeba 1859 wlamde ar moxda, am wels gaerTianda
vlaxeTi da moldova, ramac nacionaluri civilizaciis zrda ufro realuri gaxa-
da (Iorga 1924: 203). rumineTis gaerTianeba sabolood dasrulda 1918 wels transilva-
niis SemoerTebiT.
sainteresoa, identobis romel markerebze akeTebdnen aqcents rumineli moaz-
rovneebi da ra iyo maTTvis ruminelobis amosavali wertili.
a. rosetim eris gageba da funqcia Semdegnairad Camoayaliba: rodesac xalxi ar
warmoadgens erT ers; rodesac igi ar flobs sakuTar moralur erTianobas da sa-
erTo warsulis gancdas; rodesac yvela mcxovrebi ar aris gaerTianebuli, sakuTa-
ri bunebrivi moTxovnebis Sesabamisad ganviTardes da ar aris socialuri Tanaswo-
roba, maSin es eri ki ara, saSiSi droebiTi gaerTianebaa (Iorga 1924: 203).
jorj lazerisaTvis rumineli eris gansasazRvrad mTavaria irendetizmi da da-
ko-romanizmi (Netea 1965: 552), xolo ruminuli kulturis erTianobis ligis manifes-
tSi, romelic transilvaniis sakiTxs Seexeboda, sweria, rom yvela, ganurCevlad so-
cialuri statusisa, unda icavdes nacionalobas, enis Tavisuflebas, swavlas da
kulturas Cveni Zmebisas (igulisxmeba ruminelebi _ m.q.) (Netea 1965: 554,). ruminuli
sulis erTianobaze saubrisas aleqsandru qsenopoli enas gansakuTrebul mniSvne-
lobas aniWebda da aRniSnavda, rom ena yvelas gonebis, sulis koleqtiuri Semoqme-
debis nayofia, romelic inaxavs da, amavdroulad, gadascems tradiciebs, adaTebs
Tqmulebebis da saxalxo poeziis saSualebiT. igi agreTve aRniSnavda, rom rumine-
lobis mTavari ganmsazRvreli teritoria, ena da dako-romanulobis ideaa (Xenopol
1995: 25-26-27).
erTi eri meoresTan mimarTebaSi gansazRvravs sakuTar Tavs. sainteresoa, visTan
mimarTebaSi gansazRvravdnen sakuTar Tavs ruminelebi. samive ruminuli samTavros
SemTxvevaSi gamowveva sxvadasxvagvari iyo: transilvania habsburgebis, ungrelebisa
da germanelebis, xolo vlaxeTi otomanTa da caristuli ruseTis gavlenas ganic-
dida (Maciu 1969: 132). transilvaniaSi Zlieri iyo kaTolicizmis da protestantizmis
gavlena, xdeboda ruminuli enis da kulturis Seviwroeba, arsebobda transilvaniis
ruminuli warsulis dakargvis realuri saSiSroeba, xolo vlaxeTsa da moldovaSi
didi iyo Turquli da marTlmadidebluri rusuli kulturis gavlena.
sainteresoa, rom ruminelTa brZolis mTavari lozungi èna, teritoria da pat-
riotizmi~ gaxldaT (Cornelia 1968: 867). SeiZleba iTqvas, rom ruminuli enis dacva, te-
ritoriebis gaerTianeba da patriotizmi, romelic saerTo warsulis gaazrebiT da
istoriuli SemecnebiT iyo gajerebuli, gaxda mTavari ganmaTavisuflebel brZolaSi.
41
maia qvriviSvili
amrigad, identobis ZiriTadi markerebi, romelTa irgvlivac gaerTianeba moxda,

iyo: ruminelebiT dasaxlebuli teritoria, romelic sam principats moicavda, soci-
aluri Tanasworoba da progresi, erovnuli kultura, dako-romanuli warmomavloba
da saerTo ena (Ardeleanu 1984: 288; Maciu 1969: 132). XVIII saukunis miwuruls dimitri
kantemiris mier Seqmnili dako-romanizmi gaxda politikuri doqtrina da mTavari
ideologia rumineli xalxis brZolaSi (Maciu 1974: 87).
1848 wels rumineli xalxis winaSe mdgari gamowvevebi nikolai belCeskum ase Se-
afasa: `Tu Cven gvinda viyoT erTiani, Tavisufali da Zlevamosili nacia, Cveni Rir-
sebiT da samarTliT, kacobriobis winaSe valmoxdili da sakuTari RirsebiT, maSin
unda gaverTiandeT yvela rumineli erT erad, erTian erovnebad, erTiani eniT, re-
ligiiT, tradiciebiT, grZnobebiT, erTian geografiul mTlianobad, erTiani warsu-
lis grZnobiT da gagebiT~ (Ardeleanu 1984: 83-289).
amrigad, XIX-XX saukuneebSi saqarTvelosa da rumineTSi mimdinare identifici-
rebis rTul procesSi gamoikveTa ori eTnosis mier miRebuli da gaziarebuli mar-
kerebi maTi erovnuli saxis gamosakveTad, romelTa saSualebiTac maT moaxdines sa-
kuTari gansxvavebulobisa da Taviseburebis dafiqsireba konkretul istoriul si-
tuaciaSi. xsenebul periodSi, rumineTisa da saqarTvelosaTvis erovnuli identifi-
cirebis erT-erTi mTavari markeri xdeba ena da masTan erad saerTo istoriuli
warsuli.
qarTvelTa da ruminelTa identoba da identificirebis procesebi uSualod ukav-
Sirdeba am ori eris, rogorc eri-saxelmwifos, Camoyalibebis process, romlis
drosac gamoikveTa identobis sakuTari repertuari, romelmac maT sxvebis Secnobis
da sakuTari Tavis damkvidrebis saSualeba misca _ sakuTari teritoriis, enis, eT-
nikuri erTobis, kulturis, istoriis da momavlis gaazrebis, Secnobisa da dacvis
xarjze.
literatura
Ardeleanu, Ion. L’importance historique de l’édification de l’Etat national unitaire Roumain, revue Roumaine
d’histoire, tome XXII, octobre-décembre, 1983, &4.
Bodea, Cornelia. L’idée d’unité et de continuité dans la conscience du peuple Roumain, Revue Roumanie
d’histoire, T., VII, 1968, & 6, Bucarest.
Boia, Lucian. la Roumanie, Pays à la frontière de l’Europe, Paris, Les belles lettres, 2003.
Bulei, Ion. Brève Histoire de la Roumanie, Edition MERONIA, Bucarest, 2005.
Castellan, Georges. Histoire de la Roumanie (que sais-je ?), Presse Universitaire de France, Paris, 1984.
Chabot, Jean – Luc. Le nationalisme, Presses Universités de France, Paris, 1997.
Iorga, Nicolae. Les origines et l’Etat actuel des nationalités dans la Grande Roumanie, Bucarest, 1924.
Maciu, Vasule. Le mouvement social et nationam roumain aux XIX-XX siècles, Mouvements sociaux et natio-
naux dans les pays du Sud-Est Européen, Bucarest, 1974.
Maciu, Vasile. Comment la Roumanie a conquis son indépendance, Revue Roumanie d’histoire, T., IV, 1965,
& 3, Bucarest.
Maciu, Vasile. Le peuple Roumaine à l’époque moderne et contemporaine, Assosiation Internationale
d’Etudes du Sud-Este Européen, v. III, Sofia, 1969.
Netea, Vasile. Les antécédents et la future de la «lieue culturelle» pour l’unité nationale, Revue Roumanie
d’histoire, T., IV, 1965, & 3, Bucarest.
Schipers, Thomas K. “L’identité culturelle: Recherche d’une définition,
http://www.tamilnation.orgselfdetermination/nation. Immigration et identité (En France et en Al-
lemagne) Sur la direction de Patrik Hunourt.
42
Xenopol, A. L’unité de l’ame Roumaine, Les Roumains Psichologie, identité, spirituelle, destin. Anthologie
d’après une idée d’Anhela Botez, choix de textes, préface et notes par Vicor Botez, Valentin F ;
Mihaelescu, Nicolae Sarambei, Bucurest, 1995.
Степаненко, Т.Г. Этнопсихология, Москва, 2004 .
gogebaSvili i. nacionaluri erTianoba qarTvelebisa, qarTuli mwerloba, t. 15, Tbi-
lisi, 1997.
gogebaSvili i. gazeTi progresi, qarTuli mwerloba, t. 15, Tbilisi, 1997.
nikolaZe n. axali axalgazrdoba, mamulis siyvaruli da msaxureba. qarTuli mwer-
loba, t. 14, Tbilisi, 1997.
sumbaTaSvili-iuJini a. mZlavris marwuxebSi, qarTuli mwerloba, t. 22, Tbilisi, 2004.
yifiani d. am mTisa, im mTisa da sxvaTa Soris wodebriobisaTvis amierkavkasiaSi,
qarTuli mwerloba, t. 20, Tbilisi, 2002.
MAIA KVRIVISHVILI
PROCESSES AND MARKERS OF IDENTIFICATION IN THE ERA OF FORMATION OF

NATION-STATES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GEORGIA AND ROMANIA
Summary
The problem of identity is among the most interesting and actual topics of the contemporary world. It has
gained particular attention and centrality after the Cold War, with the emergence of the new political entities, on the
one hand, and under conditions of globalization, on the other. The paper deals with the processes of identity and
identification in Georgia and Romania at the turn of the 20th century.
Georgia and Romania are interesting subjects for comparative analysis. Belonging to the Mediterranean type of
culture, multiethnic and multiconfessional character, as well as their existence within imperial structures (Roman,
Byzantine, Ottoman, Russian) and under totalitarian regimes, should be mentioned in this respect.
In the process of identification the common ground is formed among the representatives of ethnic groups re-
garding the ethnic characteristics, differentiating ethnic groups from each other. The following aspects should be
considered in this respect: language, values and norms, historical memory, religion, attitude towards the motherland,
myths on the common ancestors, national mood, folk and professional art.
Since the 60s of the 19th century the national-liberation struggle was transferred into a new dimension. The
problem of search for a new place of Georgia and Georgians in the wider world intensified. The leadership in the
national-liberation movement was assumed by the new generation of the Georgian youth, with aristocratic origins
and European education. The following aspects were the determinants of the national consciousness and national
identity of the Georgian intelligentsia: territory, language, common history, traditions, culture, common ethnic ori-
gins – common ancestors.
“Language, territory and patriotism” was the main slogan of the Romanian national movement. The defence of
the Romanian language, unification of territories and patriotism, shrewd by the perception of the common past and
historical consciousness, assumed the leading role in the struggle for liberation.
The following markers of identity emerged as the core aspects in the formation of the new reality: territory set-
tled by Romanians, social equality and progress, national culture, Daco-Romanian origins and common language.
The shared markers of the two ethnic groups, shaping their national character and determining their difference
and peculiarity under the particular historical situation, were staged through the processes of identification taking
place in Georgia and Romania in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the above-mentioned period, the language and the
common historical past became one of the crucial markers of national identification for Romania and Georgia.
The Georgian and Romanian identities and identification processes are directly related with the formation of
these two nations as nation-states. These processes enabled them to perceive others and establish themselves on the
basis of the common territory, language, culture, history and the future.
43
David Matsaberidze
THE SOVIET IDENTITY – TRANSNATIONALISM AND

ETHNIC NATIONALISMS IN THE SOVIET UNION
Introduction: Research Problem/Hypotheses

The paper argues that the creation of the common soviet identity could be seen as the attempt to build a
supreme identity of all ethnic groups living in the Soviet Union, gradually abandoning and forgetting their own
identities. Thus, the soviet identity should come as a transnational identity for the Soviet people and the Soviet
Empire. The ethnic policy of the Soviet Union, exercised in its different forms all along the existence of the
Union, was aimed at achieving and fulfilling this goal. Meanwhile, the soviet ethnic policy was promoting and
strengthening the local identities through playing with different ethnic groups, quite often bringing them in
conflict; besides, it [soviet ethnic policy] also grounded the local elites, playing along with the policy of the
center.
The presented research aims to reflect on the contradictory processes of the building and crafting the so-
viet identity as a transnational identity of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the paper points to the mutual
influence and interconnection of trans-national and national (local ethnic) identities in the ethnic policy of the
Soviet Union. On the example of the soviet identity the paper will demonstrate that the local identities are per-
sistent across time, whereas transnational identities mostly appear to be the political projects and they could
not be seen as an alternative of the local ones. Moreover, the process of building of the transnational soviet
identity took extremely brutal forms in many parts of the Soviet Union (mass deportations, exiles, etc.) and it
was severely opposed by the local identities; mainly due to the fact that one of the main markers of local iden-
tity – language – was targeted. Its worth to mention that the majority-minority nationalisms emerged as a result
of contention over the language issues during the last days of the Soviet Union.
Summarizing, the paper aims to look at the contradictions between the soviet identity and the local/ethnic
identities of the peoples residing on the territory of the Union. The current paper would argue that although the
soviet identity should come as a transnational identity of the soviet union, its creation was totally impossible as
the process of construction of transnational soviet identity was accompanied and confronted with the local
identities, empowered through ethnicity in the Soviet Union.
As for the time frame of the paper, the analyses starts from the 20s of the 20th century, the time of birth of
the Soviet ethnic policy, and mostly passes through the range of periods up to the post-soviet era, as long as
the chosen ways of the post-soviet developments, and the ethnic conflicts in particular, were made possible due
to the repercussions of the soviet ethnic engineering. The process of building of the soviet identity started in
the early 20s of the 20th century, and later on was followed by forcible migrations and deportations of the 30s
and 50s. Meantime, we should have in mind, that the Soviet ethnic policy was exercised constantly during the
existence of the Soviet Union. The same is much true with respect to the creation of the common soviet iden-
tity, although the different measures (reforms, policies) taken in this direction did not result into its final aim –
creation of the Soviet men.
Theoretical Framework: Elite Manipulation

The soviet identity, seen as a collective identity, inclusive of all peoples of the Soviet Union, in practice,
as an idea, included a number of collective identities in itself, either being confronted with each-other origi-
nally, or the process of building of the soviet identity made them so. Hence, there could not be found any reli-
able basis for the propagated idea of brotherhood and unity, as its agency was not based on a particular ethnic-
ity. Quite the contrary, its agency was a mixture of different, quite often confronted agencies/ethnicities, all
with their own particular projects of identities.
44
THE SOVIET IDENTITY – TRANSNATIONALISM AND ETHNIC NATIONALISMS IN THE SOVIET UNION
In his book, Ethnicity without Groups, Rogers Brubaker suggests, “to grasp how categories are proposed,
propagated, imposed, institutionalized, discursively articulated, organizationally entrenched and generally em-
bedded in multifarious forms of governmentality” (Brubaker 2004). In line with his theory, Brubaker offers to
look at agencies – various kinds of organizations and their empowered and authorized incumbents (ministerial
offices, law enforcement agencies, armed forces units; terrorist groups, paramilitary organizations, armed
bands, loosely structured gangs, political parties, ethnic associations, social movement organizations) being
organizations and agencies of and for particular ethnic groups – more closely, which, according to his opinion,
are major protagonists of ethnic conflicts inspiring most ethnic violence, i.e. he offers to differentiate between
the interests of ethnic groups and their representing organizations.
The roles of organizations and individuals in propagating and flaming ethnic conflicts should be clearly
differentiated, as conflict can be labeled as ethnic through actions of perpetrators, victims, politicians, officials,
journalists, scientists, researchers, etc; as they not only interpret the violence, but constitute it as ethnic
(Brubaker 2004). In this line, Ronald Grigor Suny notes, “The actions and understandings of ethnic masses
have been equated or confused with the activities of their leaders, the writings of their intellectuals, or votes of
bodies that claim to represent them” (Suny 1993: 11). This was the main problem during the post-Soviet pe-
riod, bringing the ethnic label for the emerged conflicts.
The multiethnic nature of the Soviet Union, where each ethnic group, supported with territorial autonomy
and expressed through respective ethnic agencies, was stressing its assertiveness through language, self-
government and other markers of ethnic identity, excluded the possibility of creation of the transnational po-
litical project. The center, Moscow, officially interested in the creation of all unifying identity, in reality was
playing along with the lines of the local [ethnic] identities, hence the soviet identity – transnational identity –
as a political project, was doomed for failure.
Soviet Identity: Idea and Practice

In respect with the origins of the notion of the soviet identity, it is generally accepted that the new term,
the "soviet nation" (Советский народ), first appeared in the official statements at the 24th Party Congress in
1971, and was later incorporated into the Soviet Constitution of 1977. However, as reported, First Party Secre-
tary Nikita Khrushchev had used the term in his speech at the 22nd Communist Party Congress in 1961, when
he declared that there had formed a new historical community of people of diverse nationalities in the Soviet
Union, with common characteristics, termed as the Soviet People". However, the concept of "Soviet Nation"
did not use the term that had heretofore been used for a "nation": natsiya (нация). Instead it used the word for
a "people" – narod (народ). Thus, it may be more appropriate to understand the new concept as "Soviet Peo-
ple" rather than as "Soviet Nation." This single all-soviet entity – the Soviet People, Sovietskiy Narod – was
attributed many of the characteristics that the official doctrine had formerly ascribed to nations (natsii –
нации) and nationalities (natsionalnosti – национальности) composing the multi-national Soviet state. The
"Soviet People" was said to be a "new historical, social, and international community of people having a com-
mon territory, economy, and socialist content; a culture that reflected the particularities of multiple nationali-
ties; a federal state; and a common ultimate goal: the construction of communism” (Shtromas 1978: 269).
The preamble of the Soviet Constitution of 1977, created under the name of the Soviet People, mentioned
that the Soviet Union came to the stage of the developed socialism and the formation of the Soviet People – a
new historical entity – was about to materialize (Constitution of USSR 1977: 4). Meanwhile, the Constitution
of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic was in effect under the mandate of the peoples of the Soviet Social-
ist Republic of Georgia (Constitution of Georgian SSR 1982: 3). After the victory of socialism and flourishing
and re-approachement (sblizenie) of the socialist nations, a wider community than the nation would be formed,
which would lead to a new type of relations between peoples. “The Soviet People is the example of such unity,
comprised of those human beings that are united with the common mother-land and common territory; they are
provided with a unified economy based on social ownership and are endowed with culture, being socialist in
content and diversified with national peculiarities”; with national languages and the language of inter-ethnic
communication the Soviet People was aimed at building communism (The Scientific Communism 1980: 422-
423), the communist doctrine said.
45
DAVID MATSABERIDZE
The problem of identity and identity building had a top significance, although being extremely compli-
cated in the framework of the Soviet Union: The local peculiarities of various regions, embedded in their his-
tory, and the policy of the central government, promoting and purposefully shaping or suppressing local identi-
ties of various minority ethnic groups at different times, gave the process of identity building and identity
maintenance extremely complex nature. As it was mentioned above, the policies aimed at creation and promo-
tion of the local ethnic identities were launched in the early 1920s . It should be stressed that all these policies
were aimed at building loyalties, both – on the peripheries of the empire, or in its core – among cross border
nationals or ethnic diasporas, so as to ensure the stability of the empire. On the other hand, they were exercised
in practice through close relations with the policies of migrations and deportations. At the same time, as ac-
companied with the strong principle of demarcating ethnic border marks, they [soviet ethnic policies] were
contributing to the creation of the ethnically mixed settlements.
The policy of korenizatsia (territorializing ethnicity and promotion of the local cadres) and nativizatsia
(started with promoting creation of local scripts, and continued with the formation of ethnic film studios, thea-
ters, newspapers, publishing houses, unions of writers, composers, film-makers, etc.) were at the core of nation
building and identity construction of various ethnic groups. The above-mentioned associations were serving as
the local branches of the central headquarters, contributing to the formation of local ethno-political and intel-
lectual elites, strengthening with time in spite of periodic severe repressions. Empowerment of the local elites,
both intellectual and political, gradually created a fertile ground for bringing various ethnic groups in conflict
with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
To sum up, the transnational soviet identity was confronted with the local identities, hence its creation
was totally impossible considering the force of ethnicity and the role ascribed to it during the existence of the
Soviet Union. The process could be portrayed as an interaction of local and central elites, and their political
projects of nation building and nation maintenance, in particular.
A Project of Transnationalism in the Soviet Union – a Political Project Doomed for Failure?
Generally, identities are neither static nor primordial. They are tightly connected with the ongoing social
and political processes and are mobilized and formed by the impact of the latter (Cornell 1997). The transna-
tional project of the Soviet Union, embedded in the Soviet Identity, seen as a supreme identity of all ethnic
groups living in the Soviet Union, was the idea of particular elite units in the governmental structure of the
USSR.
Although the aim of creation of the Soviet Identity could be formulated and regarded as a transnational
political project of the Soviet Union, nevertheless one could claim that the project was doomed for failure from
its very beginning as it lacked the solid elite united around the common cause. The Soviet elite was the sum of
local ethnic elites (with a great share of ethnically Russian elite) building the project [Soviet Identity] in differ-
ent areas of the Soviet Union, interplaying with local identities. They were endowed with the possibility of
building the Soviet Identity alongside with their own identities, thus the former was not excluding the latter.
Hence, at a glance, local identities disappeared from the stage, being masked with an official rhetoric of broth-
erhood, unity and solidarity of all people of the Soviet Union, later uncovered with the force of ethnicity by the
time of dissolution of the Soviet Empire.
Building Common Soviet Identity

The researcher of the Soviet Union in transition, Stephen Jones, admits that the organizing myth of the
Soviet Union was a voluntary and lawful union based on interethnic cooperation, Soviet patriotism and a syn-
cretic “Soviet” culture (Jones 1994: 149). Although the “myth” had practical consequences, as long as the So-
viet Identity weakened and mitigated conflicts among the people of the Soviet Union. It seems, the official
rhetoric of brotherhood and unity had a real impact on the Soviet citizens of the Union. Although, in reality,
different ethnic groups were prone to conflicting behavior, but it was blurred and weakened due to the sense of
belonging to the shared Soviet Identity.
The Russian language was striving against “national cultures” (regional languages). Nations should have
abolished and disappeared from the scene and people would have started to live peacefully and harmoniously,
46
without nationalism. The new conditions would have been achieved all across the Soviet Union, with the help
of the Russian language. Thus, to some extent, Russian was considered to be neutral in its essence, therefore
not being the ethnic language (Rupesinghe, Tishkov 1996). The Russian language was exceptional in the lin-
guistic hierarchy of the Union, as long as a person speaking the Russian language, would be guaranteed with
all linguistic rights all over the Soviet Union (Schiffman 2001). As Jones mentions, an evocative transcript
emerged inside the official ideological framework – a coded public discourse with a message that was per-
fectly understood by the vast majority of native officials, who could do little about it (Jones 1994: 153). It
should be mentioned that the Russification policy of the Soviet Union was not limited to the prevalence of the
Russian language over the local languages. It was a multifaceted policy, with dozens of side affects and proc-
esses, leading to the creation of the Soviet Men.
The Soviet Identity, the rules and methods of its creation, was instrumental in easing conflicts and ten-
sions between various groups of the empire, in which the official rhetoric of brotherhood and unity did not
have the last role. Obviously, there were some kind of tensions, but the grievances were weakened with the
feeling of the common Soviet identity (Cornell 1997). Overcoming traditional identities is a long-lasting and
forceful process. Meanwhile, the Soviet class identity did not meet the “needs” and “reality” of all the peoples
of the Union (for example Caucasian peoples, as some of them had the pre-feudal social structure without any
signs of capitalist rule of manufacturing). That is why the Soviet ideology and identity were a bit vague and
more unacceptable for the North Caucasian Peoples, than for the European citizens of the Soviet Union. Nev-
ertheless, the problem did not have any top significance at any time, as long as the local national and ethnic
identities were not banned, from time to time even supported, alongside with the Soviet Identity, by the central
government of the Union.
Promoting Local Ethnic Identities

National history and identity among non-Russians was strengthened within the Soviet system, which used
its monopoly of information to promote internationalism. Soviet policies led to a vast array of state-subsidized
structures. As Stephen Jones mentions, native intelligentsias used them to project what Caroline Humphery
calls their “evocative transcripts” of national continuity and continuing struggle against domination (Jones
1994: 157).
Starting from the 1920s, and during the entire period of existence of the Soviet Union, Moscow was
aimed at not only the creation of the all-unifying Soviet Identity, but was also supporting the formation of na-
tional identities during the first years of nativizatsia, when scripts were created for illiterate people and their
usage was particularly promoted (Jones 1994: 159). Policies of mass education and the creation of republican
state structures with their symbols – emblems, hymns, anthems, constitutions, etc. – promoted a strong sense
of separateness of different ethnic groups. In this respect, the policies of ethnic assimilation and separation, as
well as linguistic, religious and demographic policies, played no last role in the whole picture.
Although the Russian language was promoted as a lingua franca all over the Soviet Union, the secondary
education during the first four years was provided on titular languages of national minorities (Matveeva 2002).
Through the linguistic policy, a local language was promoted as a language of secondary education, mass
communication, everyday administration and interaction, aimed at mass Sovietization. The Soviet linguistic
and ethnic policy was aimed at exclusion of inter-ethnic grievances and tensions, although in reality ethnic
conflicts were strengthened, being “covered” under the surface (Schiffman 2001).
In order to grasp the real meaning of the Soviet ethnic politics, to think about its peculiarities and to com-
prehend the differences with other empires, we should rather closely look and analyze the process of Russifica-
tion of the RSFSR, the essence of the Piedmont Principle and politics of the Soviet Ethnic Cleansing, all of
them, although at different times, being contextualized in various ways in various parts of the Soviet Empire
via politics of korenizatsia and territorialization of ethnicity.
It should be stressed that all these policies were aimed at building loyalties, both – on the peripheries of
the empire, or in the core – among cross border nationals or ethnic diasporas, so as to ensure the stability of the
empire. On the other hand, they were exercised in practice through close relations with the policies of migra-
tions and deportations, at the same time accompanied with the strong principle of demarcating ethnic border
47
DAVID MATSABERIDZE
marks, contributing to the creation of the ethnically mixed settlements. These three axis were united through
similar policy aims: strengthening the core and continuously building loyalties towards the core, at the same
time preparing the ground for the expansion of influence of the center.
The first axes of ethnic engineering – the politics of Russification of the RSFSR was directed towards the
creation of the homeland of Russian people, started on December 14, 1932, pointing to the great turn in ethnic
politics – from the politics of ethnic glorification to the politics of ethnic consolidation, that is the shift from a
moderate policy of national concessions in the 1920s to a repressive policy featuring ethnic deportations, na-
tional terror and Russification (Martin 1998: 102). Russification of the RSFSR, first and foremost administra-
tive Russification, thus delimitation of the single political entity, was aimed at elimination of small territorial
units. As a result of the exercised Russification policy in practice, the RSFSR was divided into the central Rus-
sian space, where national minorities would not be granted a distinct status, and a non-Russian space: the
RSFSR’s autonomous republics and oblasts, areas of concentration of national institutions. The policy of Rus-
sification was undertaken in line with Tadziev’s concept – “Right of Assimilation” – the idea rejecting ethnic
proliferation in favor of national consolidation.
Thus, Russification annulled the exclusion of Russians from the power structure as the separate ethnic
group – as long as they were denied their own republic, exactly what was at stake either for Lenin or Stalin –
the status of Russians in the RSFSR. In its broader sense, the policy of Russification ensured the creation of a
homeland for Russian people. As a result of the above-mentioned processes, national minorities in the Russian
regions of the RSFSR adopted the hegemonic Russian environment accompanied with the practice of abolition
of non-Russian national institutions within the Russian regions of the RSFSR. As it was mentioned, this was
the politics of administrative Russification. In parallel with this, the same line of Russification policy was ex-
ercised in the educational system and in the sphere of linguistics. In total, these policies were aimed at positive
re-evaluation of the role of Russian. The need for the better knowledge of Russian was asserted and the value
of minority language schooling was questioned. Thus, the politics of ethnic glorification was replaced by eth-
nic consolidation.
However, as the ethnic engineers were not only concerned with the problem of creation of the stable core,
but with the ensuring stability at various peripheries as well, on both sides of the border, the importance of the
Piedmont Principle emerges, as another aspect of the Soviet ethnic engineering. The Piedmont Principle was
the expression of the Soviet policy of ethnic borderlands – aimed at looking at border regions as areas accord-
ing to which neighboring nations judged over the Soviet Empire. The Piedmont Principle was an attempt to
make the Soviet Empire more attractive for neighbors. In order to transplant the idea in reality, the Soviet gov-
ernment was continuously promoting the national rights of the ethnic groups residing on borderlands, as it in
itself was in the service of promotion of Soviet foreign policy goals towards the Western neighbors. Thus, to
say briefly, the Piedmont Principle could be defined as an attempt to exploit cross-border ethnic ties for pro-
jecting the Soviet influence abroad.
Terry Martin defines Piedmont Principle as leading to the formation of the novel Soviet type administra-
tive territory – border regions, both in ideological, as well as administrative terms, projecting Soviet influence
outward, along the Soviet Union’s western borders in particular, through giving certain priorities to these re-
gions: higher salaries, more economic investment, better supply of goods, permission to run the budget deficit
and more cultural investment. Martin summarized the essence of the Piedmont Principle as follows, “Our bor-
der regions are that part of our territory by which the workers of neighboring nations concretely judge the
Soviet Union” (Martin 1998b).
From the mid 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s, the effectiveness of the Piedmont Principle was put
under question, as the period faced with emigration movements among the small national minorities inhabiting
the western borderlands. The new feeling was particularly strengthened as a result of the Ukrainian Crisis,
pushing the Soviet authorities to think about the future viability of the Piedmont Principle and after the rise of
Fascism and authoritarian rule throughout the whole East-Central Europe, official Soviet propaganda started to
turn Ukraine into a “fortress” against all foreign influence. As a result, the policy of the Piedmont Principle
was totally abandoned. Nevertheless, it could be considered more reasonable to use the term Soviet Isolation-
ism for designating the policy initiated after the abandonment of the Piedmont Principle, as it describes in its
best the new approach of the Soviet leadership towards the borderlands.
48
Ethnic cleansing served to be the third aspect of the Soviet ethnic politics triad. Ethnic cleansing within
the empire could be defined as a forcible removal of an ethnically defined population from a given territory. It
was the policy, pursued much longer than the above-mentioned two and featuring some signs, exclusively
characteristic for the Soviet space and politics: the degree of its professionalization, the extent of its commit-
ment to a local ethnic removal, and especially its practice in conditions of peace. To say briefly, ethnic clean-
sing in the Soviet Union was accompanied by the principle of resettling population along ethnic lines. Ethnic
cleansing resulted in: ethnic dilution i.e. resettlement of members of trusted ethnic groups into regions domi-
nated by stigmatized ethnic groups; ethnic consolidation – territorially concentrating dispersed ethnic groups
and forced assimilation. In the broader prism, the Soviet ethnic cleansing had two dimensions: outward and
inward – directed either towards concentrated ethnic groups in various parts of the Empire, or in case of the
inward one – directed against Diaspora nationalities – justified as a campaign for the destruction of espionage
and sabotage contingents. To sum up, the politics of ethnic cleansing was aimed at making the settlements
more “stable” for the center or to create the regions, populated by a loyal population. At the same time, ethnic
cleansing and national operations were accompanied by decrees abolishing all national soviets and national
schools of the stigmatized nationalities. These institutions were declared as artificially created.
The ethnic cleansing started in 1937 and continued, with more or less intensity, till the death of Stalin in
1953. At times, it took more repressive and strict forms, in all cases aimed at building and ensuring loyalties.
On the western peripheries of the empire the politics of ethnic cleansing was justified as a campaign for the
destruction of espionage and sabotage contingents directed against Poles, Germans, Latvians, Estonians, Finns,
etc (Martin 1998b). The list and time span of deportations looks as follows: in February 1937 – Turko-Tartar
peasants were deported to Central Asia. In September 1937 – took place the deportation of 200.000 South Ko-
reans to Central Asia. From 1935 till 1938 the following ethnic groups were subjugated to deportations due to
different reasons and aims: Poles, Germans, Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Koreans, Chinese, Kurds, Iranians.
These were the major ethnic groups subjugated to deportations prior to World War II. It began in the mid-
1930s with the partial removal of stigmatized ethnic groups from the western border regions. By August 1937,
it escalated into a total removal, being the typical pattern till Stalin’s death in 1953 (Martin 1998b).
Dealing with the above-mentioned two aspects of the Soviet ethnic engineering, the policies of Russifica-
tion and ethnic cleansing should be looked through the prism of the Soviet Xenophobia and Piedmont Princi-
ple. The Piedmont Principle was already discussed above, while under the Soviet Xenophobia is meant the
exaggerated Soviet fear of foreign influence, which was more ideological, rather than ethnic. The Soviet
Xenophobia was even more institutionally embodied through the creation of various border regions, implying
the Soviet style administrative and ideological definition of distinct border zones.
The above-mentioned principles comprised the essence and drove the Soviet ethnic politics, all of them
being closely connected with the personalities of the two Soviet ethnic engineers: Lenin and Stalin. These two
persons had one and the same approach and positions, from 1913 to mid 1922, expressed through systematic
promotion of the national forms of non-Russian nationhood – with state language, territories, and ruling elites,
i.e. politics of korenizatcia which we have mentioned above. Although later, in relation with the creation of the
union, their positions collided and they offered drastically different projects: according to Stalin, independent
republics would enter the RSFSR as Autonomous Republics, while Lenin offered a new floor of union above
the RSFSR – “Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia”, being structured as a federation of independent
republics of equal members. The future of the Union was handed over to the specially created commission,
headed by Kalinin, entitled as The Construction of RSFSR, national republics, and oblasts organs within the
RSFSR, although it should be stressed that none of its recommendations were approved.
Some traits of the tension between the two crucial axes of the Soviet ethnic policy – Soviet xenophobia
and the piedmont principle – could be found easily. The Soviet xenophobia encouraged ethnic suspicions and
imposed restrictions on the national self-expression, while the Piedmont Principle dictated the promotion of
national institutions. It is this opposition between the Piedmont Principle and Soviet Xenophobia that T.Martin
shows to be the root of the entire Soviet policy in the sphere of ethnic cleansing and deportation policy, in par-
ticular (Polian 2004: 63).
49
DAVID MATSABERIDZE
Summing up, promotion of national minorities and their rights was supported with the creation of the con-
stitutional and political privileges to the titular groups and identified the republics as a group’s historic home-
land. As a result, titular groups were rapidly constructing their histories. They were also provided with territo-
rial autonomies and the local governing structures, grounding the local elites to pursue their power politics. All
these factors, strengthened and institutionalized through the Constitution and tightly linked with territoriality,
served as a successful basis for the contradiction of different ethnic groups rather bringing them close to each-
other; hence, instead of preparing ground for the common Soviet Identity, the undertaken policy contributed to
the alienation and hostility of various ethnic groups, making the idea of the shared identity of all people of the
Soviet Union – Soviet Identity – nongroundable.
After the Soviet Union

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the all-unifying Soviet identity disappeared, both practically
(the union cracked into its constituent republics) and theoretically (the sole ideology – Communism, was dis-
credited). As a result, on an individual level, consciously and unconsciously, the search for the new identity
was launched. Individuals were facing two choices in this respect – adopting the local identity of the republic
of residence or separating on fundamental level via adopting the ethnic or tribal identity of one’s own. And the
last option – referring to the supraethnic identity, like Islam for the Muslim population.
Most of the population strongly denied the adoption of the national identity of the republic of their resi-
dence. In some cases the process took the sharpest forms. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as the Rus-
sian language was prevailing all over the empire, the local national movements were initially crystallized
around the linguistic demands. This brought the ethnic groups in conflict as long as the linguistic demands of
ethnic groups were often counter-opposing each-other; most claims were aimed at the declaration of their titu-
lar languages as the sole official language of the newly gained republic, whereas minorities were looking for
“closed” territories, supporting linguistic concentration (Rupesinghe, Tishkov 1996). Different aspirations of-
ten brought the central power and the peripheral territorially concentrated ethnic groups in conflict (cases of
Chechens, Ingushs, Georgians vs. South Ossetians and Abkhazians). As Anna Matveeva mentions, titular
groups created the new political organizations and ideologies, for voicing their demands and pretences, further
pushing the process of alienation of ethnic minorities from ethnic majorities (Matveeva 2002).
The prevailed assumption by the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, considering ancient national
confrontations to be “frozen,” “forgotten” and “abandoned” by the Communist System, turned out to be an
illusion, meeting the renewal and revitalization of national dissatisfactions. In reality, the Communist regime
was covering and including these sorts of confrontations and contradictions, through creating official histories
and counter-histories, various kinds of separate and independent institutions, resorting conflicting, often hos-
tile, collective memories (Potel 2002: 75).
The constant creation of majority-minority histories and counter-histories during the Soviet times pro-
vided a sound basis for the identity building and identity maintenance during the existence of the Soviet Un-
ion. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the already existing mutually exclusive historical narratives cre-
ated a fertile ground for the minority-majority confrontations; these narratives, and the majority-minority eth-
nic images portrayed by them, served as a succesful tool for instrumentalization and manipulation of ethnicity
and creation of the situation which is termed by Brubaker as ethnicity without groups, and by Cornell as mir-
roring nationalisms. This is what was called as War of Historians as well, although the armed clashes were not
too far from it.
Considering the above-mentioned analysis, it should be stressed that the official histories and counter-
histories, as well as different political and cultural institutions granted to the national ethnic groups through the
soviet ethnic policy, served as a successful tool in the hands of national minorities after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union to seek for the manipulation and instrumentalization of ethnicity and building of their particular
ethno-nationalist projects. As it was mentioned above, the process led to the mirroring nationalism of the dif-
ferent ethnic groups as suggested by Svante E. Cornell. As Cornell mentions, in most cases ethnic sentiments
50
and nationalist movements were made possible and could have existed only in case of presence of the other
nationalism, both of them being exclusive for each-other (Cornell 2001), created by ethnic leaders and entre-
preneurs at some point, and later contributed to the maintenance of inter-ethnic confrontations, both on an ac-
tive or passive stage.
Conclusion
Although the Soviet Identity should come as a transnational identity of the Soviet Union, as the process of
construction of transnational Soviet Identity was accompanied, and at the same time confronted with the local
identities, its creation was totally impossible considering the force of ethnicity.
The local elite units, what Brubaker calls organizations, emerged as a counterweight force of the upcom-
ing shared Soviet Identity. The latter, if it ever existed in reality, and its “architects”, in particular, were over-
ridden with the peculiar interests of the local ones, thus making the latter unable and uncapable of making up
and exercising its own political project – Soviet Identity – in practice.
Concluding, it should be stressed that instead of disarming national Soviets, the Soviet ethnic engineering
strengthened it and instead of ensuring loyalty from Diaspora nationalities – undermined it. On the other hand,
it is obvious, and supported with evidence, that it was the Soviet, not Russian, xenophobia that drove the prac-
tice of the Soviet ethnic cleansing. At the same time, the growing fear of non-Russian nationalism and disloy-
alty, due to the greater resistance to collectivization and ethnicization, the Soviet xenophobia through the re-
versal of the Piedmont Principle led the Soviet government to identify the state, to a greater extent, with its
Russian core.
The politics of Russification served best the aim of eroding the possibilities of the appearance of the local
nationalisms of various ethnic groups. At the same time, through the principles of korenizatsia and territoriali-
zation of ethnicity accompanied with the unique type of the Soviet ethnic cleansing, the loyalties were ensured
at both places – at the peripheries of the empire, as well as in its core. Thus, on the basis of our initial hy-
potheses it could be claimed that transnational Soviet identity was confronted with the local identities, hence
its creation was totally impossible considering the force of ethnicity and the role ascribed to it in the Soviet
Union.
Bibliography
Brubaker, R. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University
Press, 2004
Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Basic Law), Publishing House “Sabchota Sakhart-
velo”, Tbilisi, 1977
Constitution of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (Basic Law), Publishing House “Sabchota Sakhartvelo”,
Tbilisi, 1982
Cornell, S.E. Conflicting Identities and Conflicts in the Caucasus, in Peace Review – A Transnational Quar-
terly, vol. 9, no. 4, December, 1997
Cornell, S.E. Small Nations and Great Powers – A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. Curzon,
2001.
Jones, S.F. Old Ghosts and New Chains – Ethnicity and Memory in Georgian Republic, in R.S. Watson. (ed).
Memory, history and opposition under State socialism. Sante Fe, N.M.: University of Washing-
ton Press, 1994
Martin, T. Russification of the RSFSR, in Cahiers du Monde Russe, 39 (1-2), Janvier-Juin, 1998
Martin, T. Origins of the Soviet Ethnic Cleansing, in the Journal of Modern History, Volume 70, # 4, Decem-
ber, 1998 (b)
Matveeva, A. South Caucasus: Nationalism, Conflict and Minorities. Minority Rights Group, 2002
51
DAVID MATSABERIDZE
Polian, P. Against their Will: The History and Geography of Forced Migrations in the USSR. CEU Press, 2004
Potel, J.Y. The Political Use of Memory and the Historians’ Responsibilities. “Learning and Teaching about
the History of Europe in the 20th century”. Bonn (Germany). 22-24 March 2001. Final Confer-
ence. Council of Europe Publishing. 2002
Rupesinghe, K. Tishkov V. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World, The United Nations University,
1996
Schiffman, H. Language Policy in the Former Soviet Union, Handout for LING 540, Language Policy.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/oldscheds/2001sked.html
Shtromas, A. The Legal Position of Soviet Nationalities and their Territorial Units According to the 1977
Constitution of the USSR, in The Russian Review, # 37, 1978, 265-272
Suny, R.G. The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Stanford,
Calif: Stanford University Press, 1993
The Scientific Communism, edited by L.Gorgiladze and M.Gaprindashvili, Publishing House “Ganatleba”, Tbi-
lisi, 1980
52
Сергей Румянцев
ДИАСПОРА, КАК ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ПРОЕКТ:ПРАКТИКИ И

ЦЕЛИ КОНСТРУИРОВАНИЯ ЭТНО-НАЦИОНАЛЬНОГО СООБЩЕСТВА
2008 год стал годом Азербайджана в Германии и с этим событием, как этническими активистами,
представляющими азербайджанскую диаспору в Германии, так и властями Азербайджанской респуб-
лики связывались большие надежды. Хотя декларативно это событие носило в основном характер
культурного обмена, однако, по сути, представляло собой очередной этап в реализации политического
проекта конструирования азербайджанской этно-национальной диаспоры в ФРГ. Это событие стало
очередным в череде многих других, подразумевавших те же цели. Так, незадолго до проведения года
Азербайджана в Германии, подобного рода культурно-политическое событие произошло и в России. И
в этом случае церемония открытия носила гораздо более помпезный и официальный характер. Доста-
точно упомянуть, что год Азербайджана в России торжественно открывали 16 февраля 2005 года в
Кремлевском Дворце Съездов.
Все эти события были одними из наиболее громких в череде различного рода мероприятий, нап-
равленных на реализацию проекта конструирования азербайджанской этно-национальной диаспоры.
Этот проект стал реализовываться, фактически с момента распада СССР и возникновения Азербайд-
жанской республики (АР) как независимого национального государства. Республика приобрела
независимость в ситуации армяно-азербайджанского Карабахского конфликта (1988-1994). Конфликт,
как это нередко происходит, стал причиной мобилизации этнических азербайджанцев, проживавших в
тот момент в Германии и стремившихся оказать поддержку политической родине (Demmers, 2005, p.
11-12). В то же время, власти политической родины также прикладывали определенные усилия с целью
мобилизации этнических азербайджанцев по всему миру, тем самым подтверждая тезис о том, что
«Формирование диаспоры является результатом социальной мобилизации» (Sökefeld 2006: 268).
Вдохновителем этой политики стал бывший президент Азербайджана Гейдар Алиев, который уже
в 1991 году (указ от 16-го декабря) учредил, в качестве календарного праздника «День Солидарности
азербайджанцев мира» (отмечается 31-го декабря). С этого момента социальные сети азербайджанцев в
Германии или России, как и в любой другой стране мира, описываются в категориях диаспорального
дискурса. Последним по времени знаковым событием стало переименование в октябре 2008 года
Комитета по работе с азербайджанцами проживающими за рубежом (учрежден указом от 5-го июля
2002 года) в Государственный комитет по работе с азербайджанской диаспорой.
Особое внимание власти Азербайджана уделяют процессам конструирования диаспор в тех стра-
нах, которые, по мнению руководства страны, играют ведущую роль на мировой политической арене.
В СНГ это Российская Федерация, где проживает наиболее значительное количество азербайджанцев
по разным причинам оказавшихся за пределами «исторической родины». Среди стран ЕС особое зна-
чение отводится Германии, где также ныне проживет наибольшее число азербайджанцев эмигрирова-
вших в Европу. Кроме того, в случае с Германией, особые надежды связанны и с установлением тес-
ных контактов с турецкой диаспорой. Автор статьи проводил исследование в этих двух странах при
поддержке различных фондов. В то же время политика азербайджанского политического режима в
отношении конструирования этно-национальной азербайджанской диаспоры исследовалась в 2008-
2009 годах при поддержке Caucasus Resource Research Center (CRRC).
Методология исследования включала проведение серии биографических и проблемно-ориентиро-
ванных интервью с этническими азербайджанцами на протяжении ряда лет (3-5 и более) проживаю-
щими в России (Санкт-Петербург) и Германии (Берлин, Потсдам, Кельн), а также участвующее наб-
людение (мероприятия организуемые этническими общинами, национально-культурными автоно-
миями и пр.).
53
СЕРГЕЙ РУМЯНЦЕВ
Имидж «Диаспоры»
Под «диаспорой» этнические активисты в эмиграции, также как и власти Азербайджана, подра-
зумевают сообщества произошедшие «в результате катастрофы и вынужденного исхода» (Cohen 1996:
515). Главным критерием становится специфика отношения властей политической родины к этни-
ческим азербайджанцам как к «соотечественникам», т. е. как к членам единой и солидарной этнонации
оказавшимся, по очень разным причинам, за пределами официальной родины (Brubaker 1996: 66-67).
Конечно, применение термина «диаспора» в случае с социальными сетями, в которых участвуют
азербайджанцы в Германии или России, представляется проблемным (Clifford 1994; Baumann 2000;
Brubaker 2005). Поэтому следует подчеркнуть, что использование в данной статье термина «диаспора»
отражает установку официального диаспорального дискурса принятого властями Азербайджана и
разделяемого этническими активистами в эмиграции. С одной стороны, «через дискурсивную практику
происходит своего рода конструирование диаспоры как группы» (Тишков 2003: 180). С другой сто-
роны, происходит быстрая бюрократизация социальных сетей азербайджанцев в Германии, в резуль-
тате которой конструируется организационная структура диаспоры.
Здесь я имею в виду процесс, когда, в контексте актуализации контактов с политической родиной,
производятся все новые и во все больших количествах диаспорские организационные структуры
«включая транснациональные и городские ассоциации» (Henry 2004: 841). С постоянно возрастающей
интенсивностью, практически все постсоветские годы этнические активисты предпринимают попытки,
по выражению Бенедикта Андерсона, при поддержке государственной машины страны исхода сконст-
руировать этно-национальную азербайджанскую диаспору ФРГ, как «коллективную субъективность»
(Anderson 1998: 44-45). В результате все чаще этнические азербайджанцы, временно или постоянно
проживающие в России или Германии, описываются как солидарная гомогенная группа (Brubaker 2002:
163-167) – «Азербайджанская Диаспора» России или Германии.
Мне же представляется более убедительным предлагаемый Роджерсом Брубейкером подход к
исследованию данного феномена, когда вместо того, чтобы говорить о той или иной «диаспоре», как о
«сущностной, ограниченной группе, как об этно-демографическом или этно-культурном факте, может
быть более продуктивным, и конечно более точным, говорить о диаспорских установках, проектах,
притязаниях, стилях, практиках (diasporic stances, projects, claims, idioms, practices) и тому подобном»
(Brubaker 2005: 13).
Азербайджанцы в Германии и России: Бюрократизация социальных сетей

В числе все увеличивающегося количества организаций азербайджанцев в Германии, можно наз-
вать: общество «Майнц – Азербайджан» (председатель Б. Кемюр), «Азербайджанский Дом» (Берлин,
председатель Т. Караев); Институт имени Низами Гянджеви (Берлин, директор Н. Атеши), «Друзья
Германо-Азербайджанской культуры» (Берлин, руководитель И. Ибрагим), общество культуры и обра-
зования «Одлар Юрду» (Берлин, председатель Дж. Джафарзаде) и др. Одной из созданных за пос-
леднее время организаций стал учрежденный в январе 2009 года «Союз азербайджанских студентов и
научных работников ФРГ» (председатель С. Аббасов).
В Берлине в апреле 2004 года был также учрежден Конгресс азербайджанцев Европы (КАЕ) (пре-
зидент Н. Агамиров). Это организационная структура, которая нацелена на объединение всех этничес-
ких азербайджанцев проживающих в странах ЕС. При КАЕ был создан Координационный центр
азербайджанцев ФРГ, постоянно действующий в Кельне. Кроме того, именно Кельн стал городом, в
котором проводятся ежегодные съезды Конгресса азербайджанцев мира (КАМ). Последние из них
проводились в Кельне, в июле 2007 и в июне 2008 годов. Кроме того, роль координационного центра
осуществляющего взаимодействие диаспорских организаций в Германии с властями политической ро-
дины выполняет все более активнее посольство Азербайджана в Германии (Берлин, посол П. Шах-
базов).
По оценкам этнических активистов общая численность азербайджанцев в Германии составляет
примерно 100 тыс. человек, из которых около 20 тыс. проживают в Берлине. Впрочем, точной стати-
54
ДИАСПОРА, КАК ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ПРОЕКТ:ПРАКТИКИ И ЦЕЛИ КОНСТРУИРОВАНИЯ...
стики численности азербайджанцев в Германии не существует, в числе прочего, по той причине, что
часть эмигрантов из Турции или Ирана являются этническими азербайджанцами, но приписываются к
турецкой или иранской диаспорам.
И в этом контексте диаспоральная политика содержит в себе и определенные противоречия. С
одной стороны декларируется установка на объединение с турецкой диаспорой, которая, по мнению
Уильяма Сафрана, может быть, с определенной степенью близости, отнесена к идеальному типу диас-
поры (Safran 1991: 91). Именно этот элемент диаспоральной политики может быть особенно актуаль-
ным для сообщества азербайджанцев в Германии. С другой стороны, конструируются границы между
этническими азербайджанцами из Турции (так называемыми турецкими азербайджанцами) и собс-
твенно турками.
Вместе с тем, в значительной степени социальные сети эмигрантов производятся, видимо, вне кон-
текста диаспоральной политики или деятельности диаспорских (этнических) организаций. И здесь все
большую роль играет ислам. Видимо, и сами этнические активисты диаспоры стремятся использовать
мобилизационный потенциал ислама в процессе реализации проекта «создания диаспоры» (Kastoryano
1999: 199). Однако, мусульманские организации и социальные сети эмигрантов-мусульман представ-
ляют собой вполне самостоятельный фактор.
Для актуализации контактов эмигрантов из Азербайджана с этническими турками гораздо большее
значение имеет, видимо, независимая деятельность в Германии турецких исламских, чем светских
этнических организаций. Мечеть, не только в качестве «центра общинной жизни мусульман», но и как
«центр сообщества» (Cesari 2005: 10-17) все чаще становится тем публичным пространством, где уста-
навливаются контакты между эмигрантами из Азербайджана и Турции. Близость языка (турецкого и
азербайджанского) и политика национализма в странах исхода в духе «Две нации – одно государство»
(фраза приписываемая предыдущему президенту Азербайджана Гейдару Алиеву) приводит азербайд-
жанцев в основном в мечети основанные эмигрантами из Турции. Тем более, что своих мечетей у
азербайджанцев в Германии пока нет.
Следует заметить, что эмигранты из постсоветского Азербайджана нередко только в силу тради-
ции приписываются к мусульманам (в основном шиитам). Очень многие исповедуют ислам только на
уровне бытового восприятия его норм и ценностей. Но в Германии через контакты с активными турец-
кими религиозными организациями (Karakasoglu & Nonneman, 1997: 254-261) многие эмигранты
приобщаются к высокому, книжному исламу суннитского толка (Gellner 1994: 28-30). Таким образом, в
Германии у азербайджанцев, как и у многих других «мусульман в Европе», «усиливается чувство
принадлежности к мусульманской Умме» (Kucukcan 2004: 244). В этом контексте становится веро-
ятной и актуализация границ между иранскими азербайджанцами-шиитами и эмигрантами из Азер-
байджанской Республики, теми которые отдали предпочтение исламу суннитского толка.
Что касается России, то по данным Всероссийской переписи населения 2002 года численность
азербайджанцев граждан РФ составила 621 840 человек. При этом, по утверждению Шакира Салимова
(интервью проводилось в декабре 2007 года), начальника управления по России, Украине, Беларуси,
Китаю и Индии Государственного комитета по работе с азербайджанской диаспорой, в России прожи-
вает около 2-х миллионов «наших сограждан». Здесь можно привести интересный пример манипулиро-
вания статистикой. Когда, президенту Азербайджана Ильхаму Алиеву, в интервью на радио «Эхо
Москвы», которое состоялось 23 декабря 2006 года, задали вопрос о численности азербайджанцев в
России, он усомнился в этих цифрах: «по нашим данным, временно, как бы постоянно отсутствующих
граждан трудоспособного возраста Азербайджана порядка 450 тысяч человек. <> Граждан России
азербайджанцев где-то тысяч 500-600. Поэтому цифры в 2-3 миллиона знаете, это я думаю, не
соответствует действительности».
Диаспоральный дискурс нацелен на максимально возможное завышение численности резидентов
причисляемых к «азербайджанской диаспоре». Но вопрос, который задавался президенту подразумевал
скорее неприятные ассоциации в духе того, что Азербайджан не является привлекательной страной для
собственных граждан. Поэтому на фоне рассказа о впечатляющих успехах в развитии экономики,
президент предпочел опровергнуть приводимые обычно цифры.
55
Конструирование бюрократической соподчиненной организационной структуры диаспоры в Рос-

сии в постсоветский период шло очень быстрыми темпами. В каждом сколь-нибудь крупном городс-
ком центре существует по крайней мере одна этническая организация азербайджанцев. Следующий
уровень иерархии представляют областные организации. Наконец, на статус общероссийских претен-
дуют «Всероссийский Азербайджанский Конгресс» (ВАК) и «Федеральная национально-культурная
автономия азербайджанцев России» (ФНКА Азеррос).
ВАК наиболее активно действующая организация, в границах которой как бы объединены многие
региональные организации азербайджанцев РФ от Камчатки и Приморского края до Вологодской об-
ласти. Особое место этой этнической организации в проекте конструирования этно-национальной
диаспоры азербайджанцев России подчеркивает тот факт, что на учредительном собрании ВАК прохо-
дившем в Москве 22 июня 2000 года выступал с речью президент Азербайджана Гейдар Алиев.
Эта организация объединяет значительное число самых крупных бизнесменов России, этнических
азербайджанцев. Например, первым вице-президентом ВАК является Вагит Алекперов, президент неф-
тяной компании «Лукойл». Вице-президентом ВАК является и крупный бизнесмен Фархад Ахмедов, с
2007 года одновременно являющийся и сенатором от Краснодарского края (Совет Федерации РФ).
Вице-президентом ВАК стал и Арас Агаларов президент компании «Крокус Интернешнл», сын кото-
рого в 2006 году стал зятем президента Азербайджана Ильхама Алиева. Все три вице-президента по
одной из последних версий журнала Forbes входят в список российских миллиардеров.
Цели диаспоральной политики

Цели декларируемые активистами диаспоры активно участвующими в ее реализации могут быть,
видимо, самыми разными. Это, например, активизация участия представителей диаспоры в макси-
мально широкой пропаганде официальной азербайджанской позиции в Карабахском конфликте. И в
этом контексте «диаспоральная политика является, возможно, больше результатом конфликта, чем его
причиной» (King & Melvin 1999-2000: 137). Эта политика включает в себя также рекламу «демок-
ратических преобразований», осуществляемых правящим в стране исхода режимом, а также практики
презентации «молодого» азербайджанского сообщества за рубежом. Целью, возможно, является также
и формирование транснациональных бизнес сетей и др.
Кроме того, нынешний политический режим правящий в Азербайджане стремится использовать
этнические (диаспорские) организации и сети для распространения официально принятой в АР идео-
логии национализма – «азербайджанства» – среди эмигрантов. Здесь речь идет о постсоветской версии
«этногенеза» азербайджанских тюрков, истории государственности, образов «исторических врагов»,
занимающих важное место в постсоветской версии истории и пр. Этнические активисты и органи-
зации, видимо, все более активно включаются в эту деятельность, предоставляя возможности для
эмиссаров с политической родины проводить лекции, распространять литературу (особенное значение
здесь имеют учебники истории, в том числе и разработанные для средних школ), проводить различные
выставки, коллективные мероприятия и пр.
Разные азербайджанцы
Практики бюрократической и дискурсивной гомогенизации азербайджанцев в эмиграции не
являются достаточными для преодоления границ между азербайджанцами выходцами из разных стран.
Здесь наиболее интересен пример Германии. Через дискурсивные практики к «Азербайджанской
диаспоре» в ФРГ приписываются все те, кого эмигранты этнические активисты и чиновники на поли-
тической родине идентифицируют как этнических азербайджанцев, нередко используя статистику, как
привычный «институт власти» (Anderson 1998: 163). При этом степень интенсивности повседневных
связей и контактов между акторами, аскриптивно причисляемыми к диаспорскому сообществу
азербайджанцев, какая-либо солидарность их политических или любых других интересов не дискути-
руется. В контексте, по выражению Майкла Биллига, «риторических клише политического дискурса»
(Billig 1995: 102) практически все азербайджанцы во всех ситуациях представляют собой гомогенное и
56
солидарное сообщество (этно-национальную диаспору), неизменно лояльное конструкту идеальной

политической родины-нации.
Однако, по моим наблюдениям, повседневность многих статистических азербайджанцев прожи-
вающих в Германии в гораздо большей степени определяется тем, как они попали в эту страну ЕС или
из какого они эмигрировали государства, а не интенсивностью контактов с другими представителями
воображаемого сообщества или связями с официальной родиной и активной деятельностью в куль-
турной и прочих сферах.
Следует говорить о значительном разнообразии (культурном, языковом, по степени религиоз-
ности, исходя из дифференциации по странам исхода и пр.) различных групп азербайджанцев в
Германии. Из них посредством дискурсивных и бюрократических практик конструируется единая
этно-национальная диаспора. При этом, говорить о «разных группах азербайджанцев» следует не отри-
цая и того факта, что все границы между социальными группами в эпоху, по выражению Зигмунта
Баумана, общества растекающейся модернити (Bauman 2001: 110-112) весьма фрагментарны и ус-
ловны. Фактически, «азербайджанская диаспора ФРГ» состоит из разных групп эмигрантов из советс-
кого и постсоветского Азербайджана (АР), а также этнических азербайджанцев из Ирана и Турции.
Между выходцами из этих стран сохраняются весьма прочные границы. Цели, которые ставят перед
собой активисты, в значительной степени определяются страной исхода. Так, иранских азербайд-
жанцев больше интересует ситуация в Иране, а не в Азербайджане, который для многих остается, по
сути, Terra Incognito. Кроме того, значительная группа мигрантов с постсоветского пространства
репрезентирует себя в качестве политических беженцев и не участвует в деятельности большинства
этнических организаций, которые нацелены на активное сотрудничество с властями Азербайджанской
республики. При этом степень интеграции разных, условно выделенных, групп в принимающее об-
щество также различна. Так например, по сравнению с ситуацией в России азербайджанцы в Германии
практически не представлены в общественной жизни страны, в структуре государственной служб или
бизнеса.
Конечно, и в России «этническая идентичность предполагает серию ограничений на типы ролей,
которые может играть индивид, и партнеров, которых он может выбрать для разных типов взаимо-
действий» (Барт 2006: 20). Конечно, в постсоветский период значительная часть азербайджанцев, в
качестве мигрантов из ближнего зарубежья играет роль мелких розничных торговцев, продавцов
небольших ларьков и магазинов. Однако, «серия ограничений на типы ролей» в любом случае весьма
условна для бывших советских граждан, тем более в пространстве таких мегаполисов как Москва или
Санкт-Петербург. Азербайджанцы еще в советские годы, когда идея этнических общин или диаспор не
была актуальной, не только занимались торговлей, но и были широко представлены в правоохрани-
тельных органах России, в сферах науки, медицины, образования, различных отраслях промышлен-
ности и культуры, служили в армейских частях. Эта ситуация сохранилась и в постсоветский период и
многие мигранты новой волны не только заполнили торговые ряды на базарах, но и влились в состав
работников милиции и прокуратуры, в сферу образования и культуры или в криминальные структуры.
Состоялась и прослойка крупных и средних бизнесменов (см. выше), многие из которых теперь при-
меряют на себя и роли политических деятелей. Однако, только очень немногие из успешных мигрантов
советской или постсоветской волн попробовали себя в роли этнических активистов или безраздельно
приняли стандарты этнического большинства.
Результаты проекта
Итак, все более многочисленные этнические организации становятся важнейшим элементом дис-
курса в пространстве которого конструкты этно-национальной «диаспоры» азербайджанцев приоб-
ретают черты реально существующего солидарного сообщества. Демонстрация в СМИ процесса непре-
рывного производства этнических организаций почти неизменно становящихся партнерами власти, в
качестве системообразующего элемента конструирования этно-национальной диаспоры, привычно
присутствует в речах, заявлениях и интервью политических деятелей. В результате реализации проекта
диаспоро-строительства к середине 2007 года, по словам министра диаспоры Азербайджана господина
57
Ибрагимова, «в большинстве стран мира функционируют более 300 азербайджанских общин, и про-
цесс создания организаций диаспоры продолжается и сегодня». В контексте диаспорального дискурса
реальность этих организаций подчеркивается через постоянное упоминание в СМИ их, как правило,
символических названий (это, чаще всего, «Вятаны» («Родина»), «Одлар Юрду» («Страна Огней») и
пр.), и тиражируемые образы их руководителей (фотографии, краткие биографии, все новые имена и
фамилии, распространяемые СМИ), всегда готовых дать очередное интервью.
Логику умножения количества организаций, как симптом успеха диаспоро-строительства, можно
понять, прежде всего, если исходить из того, что к моменту приобретения Азербайджаном независи-
мости в 1991 году подобных структур практически не существовало. Нынешнее же все возрастающее
их количество становится неким символом усиления позиций независимого Азербайджана в мире. При
этом, конечно, не следует редуцировать весь процесс роста числа официально регистрируемых этни-
ческих организаций только к усилиям властей официальной родины. Распространение установки на
производство подобных структур и без какой-либо целенаправленной политики власти было вызвано
самим появлением независимой политической родины, а некоторое оживление их деятельности
совпало с трансформацией Карабахского конфликта в полномасштабную войну между Азербайджаном
и Арменией.
В ситуации Карабахского конфликта и параллельного становления независимой Азербайджанской
республики, объединения и демократизации двух Германий, распада советского блока азербайджанцы
в эмиграции быстро политизировались и начинали искать способы институционализации этнических
сетей.
В дальнейшем, когда число эмигрантов из независимого Азербайджана все увеличивалось, а
власть в стране исхода стала проявлять все растущий интерес к «соотечественникам за рубежом» (в их
числе к иранским и турецким азербайджанцам), количество организаций начало увеличиваться гораздо
быстрее. Быстрый рост численности этнических организаций демонстрирует специфику политики
влияния на эмигрантов, со стороны властей официальной родины, цель которых реализовать проект
конструирования этно-национальной «диаспоры». Бюрократическая система власти, утвердившаяся в
пространстве политической родины, может строить свои отношения только с некой иерархизированой
структурой, состоящей из официально зарегистрированных в той или иной стране пребывания этничес-
ких организаций. Реализация контактов, налаживание, как это декларируется, диалога и взаимодейс-
твия власти и «диаспоры» становится возможным только через отношения с официальными организа-
циями, которые берут на себя роль презентации всех азербайджанцев за рубежом. Все чаще эти
организации возникают в ответ на ожидания властей официальной родины, а этнические активисты,
создающие их в принимающих странах, все чаще, стремятся к реализации через эти контакты трансна-
циональных экономических проектов. Власть, безусловно, стремиться выбирать партнеров, и через
дискурсивные практики официально утверждает их статус, подтверждая их право репрезентировать
всю общину в той или иной стране или части света. В целом, это встречное (от политической родины и
этнических активистов в эмиграции) стремление к производству как бы строго иерархизированной
организационной структуры «Диаспоры» основано на разделении в той или иной степени общих –
политических, культурных и экономических интересов. Единая от низовых организаций до тех, кото-
рые представляют уже все этнические общины структура, как бы построенная по принципу госу-
дарственной вертикали власти представляется простой, понятной, прозрачной и удобной для контроля.
Во главе этой структуры как бы стоит «министр диаспоры», подчиненный уже, непосредственно,
всеазербайджанскому президенту. Нынешний же этап реализации проекта описывается самим прези-
дентом следующим образом:
Мы уже завершили структуризацию всех диаспорских организаций азербайджанцев,
проживающих за рубежом. Два раза проводили Всемирный съезд азербайджанцев. В мире
проживает не менее 50-ти млн. азербайджанцев. Конечно же, сильное Азербайджанское госу-
дарство должно быть опорой для всех наших соотечественников. В то же время, сильные диас-
порские организации помогают отстаивать наш национальный интерес. До последнего вре-
мени, где-то 5-6 лет тому назад, эти организации практически действовали на общественных
58
началах. В этой связи решением нашего общенационального лидера Гейдара Алиева был
создан Государственный комитет по работе с азербайджанцами, проживающими за рубежом,
который занимается только проблемой диаспоры. На данный момент в каждой стране эти
организации структурированы. Мы открыли за последнее время более 30-ти посольств в раз-
ных странах, а сейчас по всему миру их число стало больше 50-ти. Все посольства и диас-
порские организации в тех или иных странах действуют сообща. Получается, что это улица с
двухсторонним движением: мы оказываем им содействие, а они, в свою очередь, помогают
своей стране.
Однако, несмотря на активные попытки азербайджанских властей актуализировать этническую
идентичность эмигрантов и усилить их контакты с «официальной родиной», «Идентичность, в прин-
ципе, является текучей, подвижной субстанцией, поэтому пространство выбора для членов диаспоры
тут достаточно велико» (Колсто 2001: 7). В конечном итоге вся активность сводится к деятельности
ряда этнических активистов, по очень разным причинам участвующих в работе ими же созданных
этнических организаций. При этом, деятельность этнических активистов и организаций чаще всего
практически никак не влияет на повседневные практики приписываемого к «диаспоре», по выражению
Брубейкера, «большинства, которое не разделяет диаспорских установок и не связано никакими обяза-
тельствами с диаспорским проектом» (Brubaker 2005: 13). Подчеркнем, что контакты, с этническими
организациями, и, тем более, непосредственное участие в их работе, в очень разной степени актуальны,
как мне представляется, только для небольшой группы акторов.
По моему мнению, только в пространстве диаспорального дискурса и связанных с ним бюрокра-
тических практик конструирования единой, иерархизированной организационной структуры, азербайд-
жанцы в различных странах мира становятся реальной, солидарной группой – «диаспорой». Только в
пространстве диаспорального дискурса объединяются и приобретают черты гомогенной солидарной
группы эмигранты оказавшиеся по очень разным причинам в разных странах мира, а также азербайд-
жанцы, граждане различных стран (России, Германии и т. д.).
Bibliography
Anderson, B. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World. London: Verso. 1998
Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
1998
Baumann, M. Diaspora: Genealogies of Semantics and Transcultural Comparison, Numen. Religions in the
Disenchanted World, Vol. 47 (3) 2000
Bauman, Z. The Individualized Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 2001
Billig, M. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. 1995
Brubaker, R. Nationalism reframed: nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 1996
Brubaker, R. Ethnicity without Groups. Archive europenne de sociologie, XLIII (2), 2002
Brubaker, R. The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, January, Vol. 28 (1) 2005
Cesari, J. Mosque Conflicts in European Cities: Introduction. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, No-
vember, Vol. 31 (6), 2005
Clifford, J. Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology, August, Vol. 9 (3), 1994
Cohen, R. Diasporas and the nation-state: from victims to challengers. International Affairs, July, Vol. 72 (3),
1996
Gellner, E. Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals. London: Hamilton. 1994
Demmers, J. Nationalism from Without: theorizing the role of diasporas in contemporary conflict. In: T. Ata-
baki, S. Mehendale, ed. Central Asia and the Caucasus: Transnationalism and Diaspora. New-
York: Routledge, 2005
Henry, L. Mohan, G. Yanacopulos, H. Networks as Transnational Agents of Development. Third World Quar-
terly, Vol. 25 (5), 2004
59
Karakasoglu, Y. Nonneman, G.. Muslims in Germany. In: G. Nonneman, T. Niblock, B. Szajkowski, ed. Mus-
lim Communities in the New Europe. Ithaca: Ithaca Press, 1997
Kastoryano, R. Muslim Diaspora(s) in Western Europe. The South Atlantic Quarterly, Winter/Spring, 98 (1/2),
1999
King, C. Melvin, J. N.. Diaspora Politics: Ethnic Linkages. Foreign Policy, and Security in Eurasia, Interna-
tional Security, Winter, Vol. 24 (3), 1999-2000
Kucukcan, T. The Making of Turkish-Muslim Diaspora in Britain: Religious Collective Identity in a Multicul-
tural Public Sphere. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, October, Vol. 24 (2), 2004
Safran, W. Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora, Vol. 1 (1), 1991
Sökefeld, M. Mobilizing in transnational space: a social movement approach to the formation of Diaspora.
Global Networks, July, Vol. 6 (3), 2006
Колсто, П. Укореняющиеся диаспоры: Русские в бывших советских республиках, Диаспоры, 1, 2001
Барт, Ф. Этнические группы и социальные границы. Социальная организация культурных различий, под
ред., Фредерика Барта, Москва: Новое издательство. 2006
Тишков, В. Реквием по этносу. Исследование по социалоьно-культурной антропологии. Москва: Наука.
2003
SERGEI RUMYANTSEV
DIASPORA AS A POLITICAL PROJECT: PRACTICES AND PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION

OF ETHNO-NATIONAL COMMUNITY
Summary
The article dedicated to the politics of construction of Azeris’ ethno-national diaspora. The implementation of
this project started effectively when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Azerbaijan Republic (AR) emerged as an
independent nation state. The republic gained independence in the course of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over
Karabakh (1988-94). As it quite often happens, the conflict caused a mobilization of ethnic Azeris who were living
in Germany or Russia at the time and sought to give support to their political homeland. At the same time, the au-
thorities in their political homeland also made efforts to mobilize ethnic Azeris around the world, confirming in this
way the thesis that “the formation of diaspora is therefore an issue of social mobilization”.
This policy was inspired by former Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev, who as early as 1991 (decree dated
16 December) founded the “Day of Solidarity of Azeris of the World” as a calendar holiday (marked on 31 Decem-
ber). From this moment on, social networks of Azeris in Germany, like in any other country of the world, were de-
scribed using categories of diasporic discourse. The latest significant event was the renaming in October 2008 of
“the Committee for Work with Azeris Living Abroad” (established by a decree dated to 5 July 2002) into the State
Committee for Work with the Azeri Diaspora.
By “diaspora” both ethnic activists in emigration and the Azerbaijani authorities do not mean the characteristics
of these communities, said to be their “catastrophic origin and uncomfortable outcome”, which have been widely
talked about lately. The main criterion is the way the authorities in the political homeland describe ethnic Azeris
who have for various reasons ended up outside their official homeland. The authorities in their political homeland
refer to them as “compatriots”, i.e. as members of an ethno-nation.
Certainly, the usage of the term “Diaspora” in the case of social networks in which Azeris in Germany or Rus-
sia participate is a problematic one. Therefore, it should be stressed that the usage in this article of the term “Dias-
pora” reflects the official diasporic policy adopted by the Azerbaijani authorities and shared by ethnic activists in
emigration. On the one hand, “Via the discourse practice, some kind of construction of diaspora as a group occurs.”
On the other hand, a rapid bureaucratization of social networks of Azeris in Russia, Germany or any other country
occurs, as a result of which an organizational structure of diaspora is constructed.
Here I mean a process during which more and more new diaspora organizational structures are produced “in-
cluding transnational ethnic and hometown associations” within the context of actualization of contacts with the
political homeland. During almost all post-Soviet years, with an ever increasing intensiveness ethnic activists have
been making attempts, as Benedict Andersen put it, with the support of the state machine of the country of origin, to
60
construct an ethno-national Azeri diaspora in Germany or Russia, as “collective subjectivity”. As a result, more and
more often ethnic Azeris, who temporarily or constantly live in Germany, are referred to as “a homogenous group” –
the “Azerbaijani Diaspora in Germany”.
Diaspora politics contains certain contradictions. On the one hand, the policy of unification with the Turkish
diaspora is declared, which, in the opinion of William Safrn, can, with a certain degree of proximity, be described as
an ideal type of diaspora. It is this element of the diaspora politics that can be especially topical for the community
of Azeris in Germany, but not in Russia. On the other hand, borders between ethnic Azeris from Turkey (so-called
Turkish Azeris) and actual Turks are constructed.
At the same time, social networks of emigrants are apparently produced, to a considerable extent, outside the
context of the diaspora politics or the activity of diaspora (ethnic) organizations. And here Islam plays an ever in-
creasing role. Apparently, ethnic activists of the diasporas themselves seek to use the mobilization potential of Islam
in the process of the implementation of the project of “creation of the Diaspora”. However, Muslim organizations
and Muslim emigrants’ social networks are quite an independent factor too.
The goals of the diaspora politics declared by diaspora activists that actively participate in its implementation
can apparently be very different. This is, for example, the intensification of participation of diaspora representatives
in the promotion of official Azerbaijani position in the Karabakh conflict. And in this context “Diaspora politics
may be more a result of conflict than its cause”. This policy also includes advertising the “democratic reforms” car-
ried out by the ruling regime in the country of origin and also the practice of presentation of the “young” Azerbaijani
community abroad. Forming transnational business networks etc. might also be a goal.
In addition, the current political regime seeks to use ethnic (diaspora) organizations and networks to spread the
official national ideology of “Azerbaijanism”, adopted in the Republic of Azerbaijan, among emigrants. This is
about the post-Soviet version of the “ethnogeny” of Azeri Turks, history of statehood, and the image of “historical
enemies” that occupy an important place in the post-Soviet version of history. Ethnic activists and organizations are,
apparently, more intensively joining this activity, providing opportunities for emissaries from their political home-
land to deliver lectures, spread literature (of particular importance here are history textbooks, including those devel-
oped for secondary schools), hold various exhibitions, collective events and do other useful things.
61
Irakli Chkhaidze
GEORGIAN NATIONAL PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF ETHNIC AND CIVIC

NATIONALISMS (THE BEGINNING OF THE POST-SOVIET PERIOD)
Nationalism Studies is the topical direction of contemporary humanities and social sciences. Corres-
pondingly, a clear-cut understanding of its origin and development is rather essential and interesting. An inter-
est in the problems has significantly increased lately. The opinion holding that the epoch of nationalism is
gradually becoming a thing of the past and finds no place in the era of globalization has proved to be ground-
less. Beginning from 80s of the 20th century, nationalism has shown its real worth. Proceeding from the above,
this problem should be fundamentally studied. Modern forms of nationalism precondition, to a great extent, the
social and political status of the modern world. In this respect, much is to be studied and reconsidered in a dif-
ferent sense in Georgia.
This phenomenon has become the most prevalent form of violence in the world. It is assumed as one of
the basis for severe ethnopolitical conflicts in different regions.
The case of Georgia deserves particular interests in this respect, because the problems caused by ethnic
nationalism conditioned territorial disintegration of the country and ethnic cleansing. Resolution of the prob-
lems and territorial reintegration are very complicated questions facing modern Georgian state.
The paper aims to analyze the beginning of the Post-Soviet period in Georgia in the context of ethnic and
civic categories of nationalism. The most popular classification (distinction between civic and ethnic forms) is
taken as the theoretical framework of the research.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union (more exactly since the time of “political transformation”) our
state has faced new political, social and cultural challenges which defined the necessity of formation of a na-
tional project for Georgia as an independent country. The national project expresses a view of the society, as
well as political and public leaders, on how to realize national interests and what are the main features of na-
tionalism or nationalisms (in case of multiethnic state). An attempt for the project implementation greatly in-
fluences the state-building process. The national project contains internal as well as external directions for the
future development of the state. We are focused on internal characteristics and consider them in terms of civic
and ethnic traits.
From late XIX century to the present, the study of nationalism has been marked by deep ambivalence. On
the one side, it has been associated with militarism, war, irrationalism, chauvinism, intolerance, homogeni-
zation, forced assimilation, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, ethnic cleansing, even genocide. On the other side,
nationhood and nationalism have been linked to democracy, self-determination, political legitimacy, social
integration, solidarity, dignity, identity, citizenship etc. How people have evaluated nationalism has depended
on what they have understood it to be. This conceptual ambiguity has engendered innumerable attempts at
classification.
Among prevalent distinctions in the scientific circles, the one with the greatest resonance today is civic
and ethnic understanding of nationhood and nationalism. This has been used to suggest that there are, funda-
mentally, only two kinds of nationalism: civic, characterized as liberal, voluntaristic, inclusive and ethnic na-
tionalism glossed as illiberal, particularist and exclusive. These are seen as resting on two corresponding un-
derstandings of nationalism - one based on common citizenship and the other on common ethnicity (Brubaker
2006: 133).
In scientific literature contradictions between civic and ethnic forms of nationalism are grounded on the
West and East European cases. This distinction is projected in space and used to contrast the civic nationalism
of Western Europe or of “the West” in general, with the ethnic nationalism of Eastern Europe or other world
regions. Western forms of nationalism are based on the idea that nation is a rational association of citizens with
shared territory and rules, while non-western types of it are founded on the belief of common culture and eth-
nic origins, treating nation as an unbreakable, unified organism, which stands beyond individuals.
62
GEORGIAN NATIONAL PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF ETHNIC AND CIVIC NATIONALISMS
The famous American researcher Rogers Brubaker does not share this reflection. He notes that such con-
trasts of world regions easily acquire a neo-orientalist flavor and lend themselves to the dubious series of
linked oppositions between universalism and particularism, inclusion and exclusion, civility and violence,
civic nationhood and ethnic nationalism. The widespread civic understanding of Western nationalism is too
obviously problematic. There are some clearly exclusive and ethnic expressions of nationalism in the western
space. The longstanding violent conflict in Northern Ireland and Basque country, the intensifying ethnopoliti-
cal conflict in Belgium, and the electoral success of xenophobic parties in many countries – all these have
made it impossible to hold such an uncritical view of the essentially “civic” quality of the West European na-
tionalism.
More common is the use of the civic-ethnic opposition to make distinctions between states – or between
national movements – rather than between the whole regions (Brubaker 2006: 133-134).
Anthony Smith also speaks about conditionality of ethnic and civic divisions of nationalism. In the re-
markable book “Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History” he considers the French nationalism as a classical
European case. In the author’s opinion, in France civic nationalism means a knowledge of the dominant French
language by national minorities, business correspondence in French, learning the history and literature of the
majority, respect towards the French traditions, recognition of French symbols and state institutions etc. Smith
admits that similar policy is pursued in most liberal-democratic states of the West. Civic nationalism is far
from full satisfaction of the groups of people holding different cultures. Tendencies of formation of a multicul-
tural state are noticeable in the United States after the rejection of “melting pot” ideology in the 60s of the 20th
century, but, in fact, the American society was built on the basis of protestant English ethnic background
(Smith 2004: 70).
Despite sharp criticism of this distinction, it still maintains a bit of truth. In the civic conception of nation-
alism, individuals hold certain freedom in the selection of a desirable nation. However, in the organic (ethnic)
conception of nationalism there are no possibilities for humans to have such kind of choice. They are born in
the nation, they are an inseparable part of it irrespective of their living place.
In the presented paper, under the definition of civic nationalism we mean the national idea based on citi-
zenship of a state, mainly with its west European understanding. This approach recognizes liberal individual-
ism, minority rights and self-determination, but in the framework of conditions suggested by dominant ethnic
group. Unlike the ethnic one, in this case any member of the nation might become a member of the other na-
tion by accepting its value system.
As for ethnic nationalism, under this term we imply the nationalism of an ethnic group. In this concept na-
tion is considered as a community founded on the people of common origins and ancestors. In accordance with
this explanation, nobody could integrate in the nation or society by means of acquiring its culture and tradi-
tions if he does not belong to it ethnically. You are born as a member of a certain group of people.
Let us discuss the situation (some aspects of the process) which developed in Georgia in the research pe-
riod. After the declaration regarding the reformation of political system and providing publicity and democracy
in 1987 by the government of the Soviet Union, a new stage for the Georgian nationalism started. At the same
time, the first illegal Georgian nationalist organizations were established in Tbilisi. For example, “Ilia
Chavchavadze society”, “Rustaveli Society” and others. A significant part of the Georgian national elite incor-
porated in these associations. Nevertheless, this did not influence the formation of Georgian national project
and social movement at the time of emancipation from the Soviet Empire. Georgian nationalism got a form of
mass street demonstrations and meetings (Davitashvili 2003: 391-392).
Initially it had no radical, extreme nature and opposed to the private actions performed by the Soviet re-
gime. Two of them are worth noting. The first one was the protest against building the trans-Caucasian rail-
way. According to this project Tbilisi had to be connected to Vladikavkaz. In this act Georgian national leaders
saw an ecological danger for the mountainous part of the country. They thought that the threat was not only
ecological, but also ethnic because, in their opinion, the railway construction could cause the settlement of the
Georgian mountains by foreign population and alteration of traditional ethnic situation.
The next mass protest was directed against the trainings of the Soviet army on the territory of David Ga-
reji monastery Complex, which is one of the oldest in Georgia. This protest was mostly expressed by youth
63
IRAKLI CHKHAIDZE
and it was the first open resistance to the Soviet military machine. Students decidedly requested to cancel mili-
tary preparation (Davitashvili 393).
In both cases the protest of Georgian nationalists reached success. On the one hand, the project was not
realized and, on the other, the power and intensity of explosions were significantly reduced at the time of mili-
tary trainings.
Supposedly, successful street actions deeply influenced the nature of the Georgian national project and
nationalism in general in the period of destruction of the Soviet Union. Since 1988 the slogans demanding in-
dependence of Georgia were appealing during the mass protest of people in the streets. Such kind of street
movements continued until the beginning of the 90s and played a key role in gaining sovereignty of the coun-
try, but later Georgia as an independent state faced new challenges.
The period between 1989 and 1991 in academic literature is mentioned as a time of dominance of radical
ethnic nationalism and these processes were strictly reflected on the situation in Georgia. Georgian national
project which bore an obviously exclusive character contrasted with radical ethnic movements from the side of
national minorities residing on the territory of Georgia. The exclusiveness of this project supported political
and territorial disintegration and military conflicts. National minorities could not see the guarantees for their
safety, protection and self-determination in the framework of sovereign Georgian state. Furthermore minority
nationalism in Georgia was very rationally managed by external forces.
Notwithstanding ethnicity and exclusiveness we have noted above, there were some civic elements of the
Georgian nationalism as well, but as people lacked experience of how to rule the independent state, these traits
were not advanced or developed enough to determine formation and realization of the national project. Gaining
independence was a basic goal of the national movement which was achieved in 1991. After this event Geor-
gian nationalism objectively transformed and obtained a more civic nature, but there are considerable problems
in this direction so far.
Civic development of nationhood and nationalism for ethnically diverse Georgia was vitally important,
but as a result of this analysis we can make a conclusion that the radical ethnic nationalism (not only of Geor-
gians but also of other ethnic groups living on the territory of Georgia) played a very negative role in the for-
mation of conflict situation between the dominant people and national minorities in the research period. This
contradiction put serious obstacles on the way of state-building.
In the framework of this short article we have tried to consider and clear up the main essence of the Geor-
gian nationalism at the time of liberation from the Soviet Union.
Comprehensive investigation of the past (particularly of the near past) in the context of nationalism stud-
ies is essential for the future development of our country. Georgia is the multiethnic state, thus national policy
is in tight relations with state integrity and security.
Bibliography
Brubaker, Rogers. Ethnicity Without Groups. Harvard University Press, 2006

Coppieters, Bruno. Legvold. Robert. eds., Statehood and Security: Georgia after the
Rose Revolution. Tbilisi 2006
Davitashvili, Zurab. Nationalism and Globalization. Tbilisi 2003.
Hechter, Michael. Containing Nationalism. Tbilisi 2006
Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History. Tbilisi 2004
Yin, Robrt K. Case Study. Sage Publications. Inc, 2003.
64
Hripsime Ramazyan
TRADITION DISMANTLING: A POST-TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY

IN THE SHADOWS OF WESTERNIZATION
Introduction: Old People, New Armenia

Armenia experienced radical changes during the past decade. The break-up of the Soviet Union in the late
80s up to the early 90s and the consequent foundation of self-government in the Republic of Armenia was
about to materialize the expectations of the people about the democratic growth, affluence of the country and
its inclusion into global progression. Conversely, we ended up with political instability leading to economic
standstill, mass unemployment, and impoverishment of the population. These noteworthy changes and devel-
opments, combined with the pressure of globalisation and modernization, had tremendous impact on the peo-
ple and their lives, finding an echo in the communal and individual modification, in altering human values,
social support systems and relationships, primarily within the family.
Whenever changes take place in a society and a culture on a paradigmatic level, the new hypotheses do
not instantaneously replace the old ones as the overriding prototypes of thinking and behaviour. Some long-
established basics are losing their power and significance, while others keep hold of their force. Such reforma-
tion is an inherent part of a more general process of social change, especially observable in a transitional set-
ting such as in Armenia, and it firstly affects the younger layers of the society, more prone to change, – primar-
ily family, gender and generational relations, as well as the general process of transition to adulthood in the
general scaffold of the life cycle. The processes of change are not characterised by a clear-cut replacement of
existing behavioural stereotype and value orientations, but they are somewhat slow and diverse.
Such convoluted changeover has been scheduled in Armenia, contributing more to its cultural diversity.
Undeniably, unlike the neighbouring ethnically and culturally highly branched out countries, with the strongly
differing traditions of family life, relations between generations and the gender role, Armenia stands out with
its mono-ethnic structure of population. Still, there are some overall patterns and stereotypes to be observed,
rooted in the dominant centuries-long tradition of Apostolic Christianity, the Mediterranean value system and
the Soviet inheritance, with the budding role of Western influence. Weakness of the state, mismanagement and
lack of strategic thinking resulted in demolishing of the social security system and led to mass impoverish-
ment. Throughout these years, due to escalating income gap between the new poor (over half of the population
is considered to live below the poverty line) and the thin layer of the new rich (the rich who either used acces-
sible fiscal and social resources to accumulate capital mainly through privatisation or trade, or obtained wealth
through corruption) the social stratification became more noticeable.
The independence in Armenia has proven to be rugged on many levels as a Soviet shade. The distinctive-
ness of Armenia and inner tensions of the country have been shaped by centuries of dominance by Persian,
Russian, and Soviet forces. Therefore, Armenians attribute great significance to kinship ties with the friends
and relatives being expected to share both happy events and grievances. Wedding parties or funerals serve as
places of union of relatives, friends and the kin. Ignoring social duty to attend is disapproved. In the period of
recession kinship system played a very important role (1991-1995) boosting the implications of economic cri-
sis, when social wellbeing appeared to be entirely interrupted.
Responsibility towards family members and kin, as well as friends, is placed before obligations to the
state and society at large. The family structure of Armenia could, and, to a considerable extent, can still be
described as traditional. Even in rural areas families often consist of three generations, with the eldest male
considered as the head of the family, who exercises superiority and absolute power. Grandparents would still
live together with their married children, sharing responsibility for bringing up their grandchildren although
65
HRIPSIME RAMAZYAN
basic households in cities commonly consist of a nuclear family – parents and children. The focal point for any
family is the children, and much concentration is put at their education and development, especially in edu-
cated layers of the society.
Families have to a considerable degree been affected by the transition to new political, economic and so-
cial systems typical to western countries. Armenians bear strong feelings of respect and defence toward
women, which is an inseparable part of male-dominated Armenian national culture. Impolite or indiscreet atti-
tude towards a woman is strongly disapproved. Simultaneously, women were obliged to focus on family re-
lated matters and were supposed to fit to their primarily inferior roles.
Challenging Male Domination

Starting from the depths of Armenian national culture and traditions, although male-dominated, there have
always existed the values of deep respect to a woman, and strong disapproval of rude or indiscreet attitude to-
wards a woman. By saying woman, Armenians first of all imagine the concept of mother. Women were sup-
posed to concentrate on family-related duties, and most-importantly children’s upbringing. Initially, their life
outside the family was traditionally more restricted by social norms than those of males, and marriage was a
norm as a family life. In Armenian culture the role of a woman is predetermined by the following principles:
• In a male-dominant society the woman has always had her significant role in the home-keeping and
warming.
• The woman has had the right of property since the early Middle Ages.
• She has always been educated and the society has always appreciated an independent, strong and moder-
ate woman.
Women are supposed to marry, which is considered to be a norm; however, their behaviour outside the
family is traditionally more restricted by social norms than that of males. Nevertheless, after the awaited years
of independence, deprived of work and their traditional role of breadwinners, men found their place and role in
the society or family to be out of ordinary. They found themselves out of place and the supreme dominance
was threatened to fade away. Failing to succeed in adjustment to new realities in the sphere of economy, men
did not seek opportunities to open their own business or find jobs outside their professional field.
Women proved to be more elastic and resourceful when it came to finding the means for feeding the fam-
ily and in many instances exceeded the standard line established not so long ago, in the years of the Soviet
rule. The base of men’s authority to a certain degree became eroded, and frequently even re-establishing in the
subsequent period of their economic role in the family would not fully return their habitual dominance in fam-
ily-related decisions. Thus, many women became open to all kinds of jobs not caring what they did, where
they worked and however hard the work was. With their PhD degree many of them gladly took the jobs of
housekeepers or other toil, hence proving that they could also work just like men do. Turkey and Russia be-
came the primary destinations for many women who brought food and commodities for resale in Armenia.
Females’ domain also included trading in small kiosks or market places. Women are still active in rapidly de-
veloping hotel and bed-and-breakfast business. International organizations employ them considerably more
than men.
Gradually women started to stand for their sacred right to be considered on the same level as men regard-
less of the situation which is in reality a phenomenon that we call Westernization, when women strive to be
considered equal to men no matter what the circumstances are.
During election period the number of respondents who stand for women to see them in political arena has
increased drastically:
However, the perception of the female population itself is traditionally conservative. They are usually not
inclined to to be involved in politics.
Unlike the beginning of transition when men comprised the majority of economic migrants, now
the pattern is apparently changing. Women seem to find jobs abroad easier than men.
However, if male migration target is Russia, where men are mostly occupied in construction business or
trade, women more often go to Europe and US, where they work in families as housekeepers, or look after old
people.
66
TRADITION DISMANTLING: A POST-TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY IN THE SHADOWS...
“Do you encourage your daughter’s nomination

for holding public office?”
44%
42%
36% 37%
18%
17%
Yes No Neutral Yes No Neutral

2002 (n=1600) 2003 (n=1650)
Domino Effect: Modification of Social Roles

Although the younger members remained economically dependent upon their parents until quite late in
their lives the economic changes and the tendency of Westernization have first of all influenced the power
The number of unemployed in %-s, in respect to the whole
Total Women
Unemployed 100 100
Up to 18 years old 0.2 0.1
18-22 5.6 5.3
structure of the family, previously fully dominated by elder members who were also the main breadwinners.
23-30 22.4 20.0

31-50 62.5 66.3
Over 51 9.3 8.3
Educated
Higher 13.0 12.0
Secondary Professional 25.3 23.8
Secondary in general 56.3 59.9
Incomplete secondary 5.4 4.3
Now families deploy young adults for work as part of a larger household survival strategy, or, actually
young adults enter the labour market out of economic need to help reduce the vulnerability of their households
as well as to pursue their own career, a fact present in the Western world for ages. This way they are nonethe-
less provided with opportunities to sustain their families, but also to learn, to grow as individuals, and prepare
for the future career, as how and when a young person enters the labour force can set the stage for future status
and work opportunities. Westernization and economic globalization is providing unprecedented opportunities
67
HRIPSIME RAMAZYAN
for older adolescents and young adults, especially girls, to earn incomes that can increase their social and eco-
nomic standing, self-esteem, and skills.
Officially recorded number of unemployed according to sex, age and level of education
It is interesting to consider the official number of unemployed women out of the whole number. The
number was recorded in 2003, which is changing gradually as a result of transformation to adulthood.
In families where women became prime breadwinners, male heads of families lost much of their power
and authority. This tendency is apparent not only in urban families with high level of education, but now also
in rural areas, although it should be noted that male authority is seldom challenged either by women or the
young generation openly and in public.
Simultaneously, this changes their status within their families. The young, who in many cases appear to be
more flexible and active in the labour market than their less dynamic parents, start to contribute more and more
significantly to the family budget, which radically increases their say in family matters. At the same time, there
is higher unemployment among young adults than other age groups. Youth unemployment has many implica-
tions for the labour market, for poor households, and for young adults themselves – the inability to find work
exacerbates economic exclusion, poverty, and the probability of future unemployment. As working is an im-
portant means for young people to develop adult roles and responsibilities, unemployment obstructs the
movement of young people from adolescence to adulthood. Both these factors create increased diversity in the
power structure within a family, but in any case they lead to earlier maturing of the youth.
Summing up, it can be said that economic and social transition caused the dynamics of change in genera-
tional, gender and family patterns, gradually shifting them towards western norms and lifestyle, and respec-
tively influencing the process of transition to adulthood, among other factors through creating an increasing
cultural gap between various cohorts of the population, but also dividing the generation of young adults them-
selves. What is surprising, however, is not the change itself, but rather the inertia and the continuity in values
(apart from such as related to sexual minorities) characterising the sample which we have studied. In general,
the resistance of traditional values is still very strong among the poorer, rural and small-town communities,
social institutions such as the kinship system experienced little damage continuing to play an important role in
the communities. However, paradoxically, transition to adulthood in Armenia has accelerated as compared to
previous circumstances. Armenian society shows trends somewhat different from those observed in the west-
ern countries. In some cases it is clear that there is certain time lag, and the forces of globalisation along with
economic development will bring change in the same direction, particularly with regard to more sexual free-
dom among young adults and more gender equality, or achieving economic independence at younger age.
Nevertheless, it seems that the Armenian society will not become fully westernised in foreseeable future, but
will preserve to a significant extent its cultural identity and, like other social phenomena here, the transition to
adulthood will continue to show specific, mixed characteristics of both East and West. It is clear that in the
short term at least strong continuity in values will take place, and the Armenian tradition of close emotional
relationships within the extended family, the importance of kinship, parent-child interdependency, and certain
modesty in sexual relations will remain present. Very often, women even try to downplay their share in family
income to leave space for men’s pride.
Market economy also imposed hard conditions of employment. Those who have their own business or
work in a private sector often work for 10 or more hours a day, 6 or even 7 days a week, have no vacations.
The family usually feels happy if at least one of its members is employed. Hence other members of the fami-
lies frequently take the gender-specific role of the employed. So the traditional role division between husband
and wife is not kept any more. Husbands known for their authoritarianism and adherence to traditional role
division now can easily be found doing all kinds of house chores and looking after the children. The possibility
to generate income increased the self-esteem and independence among previously dependent women. It also
contributed to the increase of responsibility and self-reliance.
Under the Soviets until 1991, young people enjoyed a hundred percent literacy rate, easy access to educa-
tion, full employment, and a reliable and free medical system. Today, most of this has been lost: young people
are increasingly poorly educated, and find it difficult to get work. Other dramatic changes took place in the
68
TRADITION DISMANTLING: A POST-TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY IN THE SHADOWS...
education system. After having gained independence in 1991, the new Armenian state immediately faced huge
problems in financing the state system of universal education. This has been an enormous challenge, but the
government has not addressed the main problems causing today’s failure: rampant corruption, growing ine-
quality, and the inability of the new system to offer employment prospects.
According to the results of 2001 national census in Armenia, the level of education comprises 98%.
Women’s specific weight among the people with higher education comprises 58%. Every other woman in Ar-
menia has a higher education. According to the statistics, the percentage of women with higher education still
exceeds the recorded number for men.
The level of education of the nation according to age and sex has the following shape
15-24 25-49
The Level of Education age range age range Over 50
W M W M W M
Illiterate – 0.3 0.4 0.3 3.1 1.2
Incomplete Elementary 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.3 2.5
Elementary 1.6 3.2 0.5 0.9 10.1 9.5
Incomplete Secondary 22.2 35.9 3.6 7.1 14.8 14.2
Incomplete Common Sec-
41.5 40.3 39.4 42.9 34.4 34.4
ondary
Secondary Professional 19.4 7.8 35.0 27.2 21.5 22.4
Incomplete Higher Educa-
7.4 7.5 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.6
tion
Higher Education 7.7 4.8 20.2 20.1 11.7 15.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
While many analysts of the post-Soviet transition have suggested that positive changes would appear
both with consolidation of the country and as more young people came through the system, the reality ap-
peared to be quite different at least until now: instead of a new generation with new ideas coming to power, the
best and the brightest are leaving for other countries, with those who are left behind are worse educated and
less equipped to handle a complex world and live a decent life. As noted by some specialists, if young people
are left with no alternative but unemployment and poverty, they are likely to join a rebellion as an alternative
way of generating an income.
Still, the numbers of young people who actually get involved in politics, or even more so in various radi-
cal or other potentially destabilising groups is very small, while young people are absent from many areas of
social and political life. But behind those who actually join up is a much larger disaffected group that sees little
hope in the future, except through migration. In Georgia, the potential for radicalisation of youth is already
visible, as demonstrated by recent political events after and before the parliamentary elections of November
2003. The attitudes and abilities of young people remain to be a critical political issue in Georgia.
Finally unemployment must be addressed as top priorities considering the way they are rapidly threaten-
ing youth and future generations. This is especially important in the context of growing influence of peer-
groups, and the growth of numbers of impoverished youth without sustainable livelihood or family care. Peer
influences and how adolescents view themselves compared with their peers overall influences young adults
when forming their own values and perceptions, as they are very vulnerable to peer pressure at this age.
Friendships and peer groups are very important during early adulthood – young persons rely on friends for
support and advice, mutual openness and personal disclosure; groups provide for them a support base outside
the family to explore and develop different identity roles.
69
HRIPSIME RAMAZYAN
Rapid urbanization and impoverishment, along with increased needs. result in large numbers of unskilled
young people on the economic margin and only tenuously connected to their families.
In previous times, notwithstanding the relatively early physiological maturing of adolescents specific for
the Caucasus, and equally early acquisition of civil rights at 18, while marriage was allowed from 16, the same
age (16-18) was an average norm for graduating school, the transition to adulthood from the above-mentioned
perspective was somewhat delayed if compared to western analogues, or even to the northern parts of the So-
viet Union. This had partly to do with traditionally close family relations and prolonged intimacy between par-
ents and children characteristic for the Caucasian societies, but also with economic dependencies and the way
the society was organised – in the situation of restricted geographic mobility of the young in a small country
with limited employment or educational opportunities, deficiency of accommodation and virtual impossibility
for a young person to acquire independent housing, low salaries and restricted career opportunities for the
young, – the latter as a rule even after marriage lived with their parents, relied upon their financial assistance
for livelihood, and had limited voice in family matters. At the same time, career was strongly dependent on the
age, and with minor exceptions the young could hardly achieve a high managerial or political position/role.
Conclusion
In the Soviet period equal gender rights were fixed by the Constitution and the inequalities occurred rather
late (more characteristic to post-transition period).
Patriarchal traditions, going deep into centuries of history are now real relations observed mainly on fam-
ily level: the male being the caterer and fighter, and the female – the mother and the housewife of the family.
The enhancement of patriarchal tendencies concerning the fact that women are not competitive in the market
of working labour which is drastically decreasing, in the sphere of corporations starts a hard struggle for higher
income, banking, finances, and women surrender losing their position to men, their tough strength and man-
power. However, the sliding of the country into the depths of recession, the fall of the level of life, the polari-
zation of income, the instability of the society and the empowerment of the role of family have made women
activate their efforts providing for the existence of the nation. As a result of transition period, we must outline
the following alternations in social roles: the fading of traditional breadwinner role division between husband
and wife, the new distribution of roles among different generations, more but still not enough opportunities for
the youth (which raises the problem of migration), the separation of parents and the young and (who used to
live together with parents throughout their lives, even after marriage), the earlier maturing of the youth in the
country due to the acceleration of life pace and the earlier acquirement of independent social identity, the sex-
ual liberation and the political indifference, the growing respect for authority, the bent for pragmatism and ca-
reerism. In general, secularised orientations, post-materialism, sexual permissiveness, ecologism, feminism,
postmodernism, and libertarianism are more evident among highly educated young urbanites, who are exposed
most intensively to new social arrangements and western ideological influences, show greater willingness to
accept new ideas, and who bring these to adulthood.
However, unlike Western European societies, – left materialism, idealism, as well as political activism are
of rare occurrence among every social stratum of the young adults, due to negative legacy of the past. Yet, in
general, young adults are more optimistic, more self-confident, more satisfied with their life, show less inter-
personal trust, and, surprisingly, in spite of evident political passiveness and mistrust for political elites, try to
believe more in the effectiveness of civil participation, compared to the older generations.
Bibliography
“Gender Situation in Armenia: Consequences of the Transformation Processes and Women’s Empowerment
within the Context of the Millennium Development Goals”, Yerevan, 2005
“Woman, Gender, Culture,” Moscow, 1999
Gender Studies in Armenia, Special issue, Yerevan, 2003
Демократизация армянского общества: гендерная перспектива (по результатам социологического
опроса), Ереван, 2004
70
marina andrazaSvili
specifikuri sirTuleebi germanulenovan geografiul saxelTa

gadmotanisas qarTulad da arsebuli uzustobani
sakuTar saxelTa translireba-transponireba erTi enidan meoreze yovelTvis

specifikur sirTuleebs ukavSirdeba da gamonaklisi am mxriv arc geografiuli sa-
xelebia. problemebi/translirebis TvalsazrisiT angariSgasawevi momentebi am Sem-
TxvevaSi kidev ufro metia, radgan ekvivalentebis zustad daZebnaze _ romelTac
erovnuli mexsiereba xangrZlivad inaxavs da iolad verc maTi Secvla-gadakeTebis
Semdeg iviwyebs _ bevrad aris damokidebuli Seuferxebeli operireba mecnierebis
iseT dargebSi, rogoricaa: geografia, geologia, istoria, toponomastika, meteoro-
logia, hidrografia, kartografia da a.S., rom aRaraferi vTqvaT am saxelTa pirve-
ladi, praqtikuli daniSnulebiT _ anu yoveldRiur komunikaciaSi gagebinebis fun-
qciiT _ gamoyenebis mniSvnelobaze.
winamdebare gamokvlevis uSualo mizania germanul geografiul saxelTa qarTu-
li ekvivalentebis analizi, rac gulisxmobs qarTuli werilobiTi wyaroebis Seda-
rebis fonze arsebuli diferencialuroba-variantulobisa Tu gavrcelebuli uzus-
toba-naklovanebebis gamovlenas, iseve rogorc maTi gamomwvevi mizezebis savaraudo
axsnas; amis misaRwevad ki igi _ rogorc aucilebel winapirobas _ upirvelesad im
faqtorTa warmoCenasa da klasifikacias varaudobs, romlebic SeiZleba Semaferxeb-
lad moqmedebdes toponimTa translireba-transponirebis procesze. winamdebare ga-
mokvleva miznad ar isaxavs sadiskusiod warmodgenili yvela semantikuri subkla-
sis germanul toponimTaTvis swori da saboloo qarTuli ekvivalentis SemoTavaze-
bas, radgan amas geograf-kartografTa, germanistTa da qarTvelologTa erToblivi
da sagangebo ganxilvis sagnad miiCnevs, Tumca zogierT SemTxvevaSi arc konkretul
rekomendaciebs gamoricxavs lingvisturi poziciebidan.
germanuli warmomavlobis geografiul saxelebze dakvirvebam saSualeba mogvca,
maTi qarTulad translireba-transponirebasTan dakavSirebuli sirTuleebi sakuTa-
ri genezisis mixedviT ori jgufis saxiT warmogvedgina _ obieqturi xasiaTisa da
subieqturi xasiaTis _, romelTagan TiToeuli ramdenime qvejgufs aerTianebs (ar
gamovricxavT klasifikaciis relevanturobas sxva enebTan mimarTebiTac). zRvari
pirvel jgufSi Semaval qvejgufebs Soris ramdenadme pirobiTia, radgan mravali
toponimis SemTxvevaSi (rogorc qvemoTac davrwmundebiT) metwilad erTdroulad
moqmedebs ori an meti kanonzomiereba, ris gamoc aucilebeli xdeba paralelurad
erTi da imave toponimis ramdenimejer ganxilva sxvadasxva kuTxiT. esenia:
_ obieqturi xasiaTis sirTuleebi, rogoricaa:
• aRsaweri fenomenis heterogenulobis fonze myar orTografiul kriteriumTa dad-
gena-SemuSavebisa da maTi unificirebis TiTqmis SeuZlebloba. naTqvami gulisxmobs
toponimTa arsebobas iseTi semantikuri subklasebis saxiT, rogoricaa: kontinente-
bis/qveynis nawilebisa da qveynebis/saxelmwifoebis, dasaxlebuli punqtebis (qalaqe-
bis/dabebis/soflebis...), dedamiwis zedapirisa da geografiuli arealebis/landSaf-
tebis (mTebis/mTagrexilebis/zegnebis/dablobebis...), wylebis (okeaneebis/zRvebis/tbe-
bis/mdinareebis/sruteebis/arxebis...), qveynis administraciuli erTeulebis (mxaree-
bis/olqebis/regionebis...) da a.S. saxelebi. isini mniSvnelovan struqturul gansxva-
vebulobas avlenen TviT originalis enaSic da, bunebrivia, maTi ekvivalentebi verc
TargmanSi daeqvemdebareba erT struqturul Targze morgebas;
71
marina andrazaSvili
• sasazRvro regionebis orenovneba da amis gamo iq warmodgenil toponimTa arse-

boba _ enaTa naTesauri siaxlovis mixedviT _ ori fonemuri versiis, xSirad ki
aseve ori grafemuli versiis saxiT. am versiebs Soris arsebuli dacilebulo-
bis diapazonis Sesafaseblad sakmarisia erTmaneTs SevudaroT Tundac ramdenime
toponimis, erTi mxriv, germanul-holandiuri: Nimwegen || Nijmegen / Arnheim || Arnhem,
germanul-daniuri: Tondern || Tønder / Sonderburg || Sønderborg, germanul-franguli versi-
ebi: Strassburg || Strasbourg / Hagenau || Haguenau...; meore mxriv ki, germanul-polonuri:
Stettin || Széczicin / Sommerfeld || Lubsko / Görlitz || Zgorzelec, germanul-Cexuri versiebi:
Leutensdorf || Litvinov / Falkenau || Sokolov / Karlsbad || Karlovy Vary / Marienbad || Marianske Lazne&...
analogiur SemTxvevaSi, bunebrivia, vdgebiT gadawyvetilebis miRebis sirTulis
winaSe, Tu romels mivaniWoT upiratesoba wyvilebSi warmodgenili versiebidan
normis dadgenis, leqsikonSi Setanisa Tu rukaze dafiqsirebis dros;
• amosavali/germanuli enisa da miznobrivi/qarTuli enis anbanur/grafemul siste-
maTa radikaluri gansxvavebuloba, anu laTinuri Sriftidan qarTulze transpo-
nirebis sirTuleebi, rac gvaiZulebs amosaval toponimTan ekvivalentis grafemu-
li suraTis daaxloebis mizniT qarTulSi veZeboT sagangebo gamosavali (ix.
momdevno punqti). igive faqtori udavod naklebxelSemSlelia erTi da imave, da-
vuSvaT, laTinuri damwerlobis mqone enebis SemTxvevaSi, roca ar aris aucile-
beli, saxelis orTografia maincdamainc warmoTqmis Sesabamisad vcvaloT. maga-
liTad, erTnairad iwereba da warmoiTqmis originalis enaze da germanulad
Cambridge ['keImbrIdZ] kembriji / Dublin ['dablIn] dublini / Massachusetts [mQs´»tÌSu˘sEts]
masaCuseTi...; magram aseve erTnairad iwereba, miuxedavad maTi gansxvavebulad warmo-
Tqmisa: London londoni ['l√ndń](ingl.), ['londń](german.) / sakuTari saxeli Shakespeare
Seqspiri ['SeIkspI´](ingl.), ['Se˘kspI˘r](german.)...;
• zogadenobriv landSaftSi arsebuli transponirebis klasikuri tradiciebis
stabilurobis fonze Tanamedrove tendenciebisTvis angariSgawevis sirTule _
anu orientaciis aRebis SesaZlebloba saxelis mxolod grafemul suraTze, mxo-
lod fonemur suraTze an kombinirebulad oriveze erTad. magaliTad: Potsdam
[»potÌsdam] potsdam-i Tu pocdam-i / Lausitz [»laÌusItÌs] lauzitc-i Tu lauzic-i / Darmstadt
[»darmSÌtat] darmStadt-i Tu darmStat-i da a.S. analogiur SemTxvevebSi gadawyveti-
lebis miRebisas angariSgasawevia mSobliuri enis fonologiur sistemasTan topo-
nimis warmoTqmis ramdenadme miaxloeba-misadageba, xolo roca es uSualod ver
xerxdeba, maSin orientaciis aReba mocemuli toponimis fonemur suraTze rome-
lime sxva e.w. Sualedur enaSi (ix. qvemoT). am konteqstSi kidev erTxel unda mo-
vixsenioT winamaval punqtSi ganxiluli Shakespeare, romlis qarTuli versiac
orientacias iRebs saxelis ara grafemul, aramed fonemur suraTze da ufro uax-
lovdeba ara maincdamainc amosaval/inglisur transkrifciul suraTs ['SeIkspI´],
aramed germanuls ['Se˘kspi˘r], rac, ar gamovricxavT, saxelis mSobliuri enis fo-
nologiur sistemasTan daaxloebisken intuituri swrafviT, anu qarTvelis saar-
tikulacio aparatis angariSgawevis aucileblobiT iyos nakarnaxevi;
• zogierTi semantikuri subklasis toponimTa Targmnadoba-araTargmnadoba an maTi
nawilobrivi Targmnis SesaZlebloba. naTqvami upirvelesad exeba ramdenime leq-
semiT warmodgenil toponimebs, romelnic TavianT TavSi erT-erT komponentad
moicaven zedsarTav saxels, sazogado saxels, horizontis mxares an sulac sxva
sakuTar saxels (metwilad windebuliani sintagmis formiT). aseTebia: Großer
Wannsee / Kleiner Wannsee / Krumme Lanke / Weißensee / Der weiße See / Schwarzwassersee /
Scharzwald..., Nordsee / Ostsee / Westfriesische Inseln / Ostfriesische Inseln / Nordfriesische Inseln...,
72
germanul geografiul saxelTa qarTuli ekvivalentebi
Müritzsee / Chiemsee / Spreewald / Fichtelberg / Mittelgebirge..., Neu-Ulm / Neuruppin / Altötting /

Niedersachen..., Bad Schandau / Burg Eltz / St. Gallen..., Neustadt an der Saale / Neuburg an der Donau /
Limburg an der Lahn / Neustadt an der Weinstraße / Neustadt an der Waldnaab / Neuhaus am Rennweg /
Königstein im Taunus / Neustadt bei Coburg / Neustadt am Rübenberge / Neuhausen am Rheinfall... am
jgufis saxelebTan specifikuri problema is aris, Tu maTi komponentebidan ro-
meli miviCnioT Targmnis Rirsad, raTa ekvivalents upirvelesad mSobliuri enis
fonologiuri sistemisTvis misaRebi JReradoba da gamarTuli sityvawarmoebiTi
struqtura hqondes, imavdroulad ki rac SeiZleba naklebad emTxveodes (buneb-
rivia, am movlenas absoluturad ver gamovricxavT) imave an sxva qveynis msgavs
toponims; anu, davuSvaT, qvemoSemoTavazebuli versiebidan romelze SevaCeroT
arCevani: Weißensee vaisenzee Tu TeTri tba, maSin rogori ekvivalenti mivusadagoT
Der weiße See-s? / Altötting altiotingi, alt-iotingi Tu Zveli iotingi / Burg Eltz
burg-elci, cixesimagre elci Tu elcis cixesimagre / Neustadt bei Coburg noiStat-bai-
koburg-i, noiStati koburgTan Tu axalqalaqi koburgTan / Neuhausen am Rheinfall
noihauzen-am-rainfal, noiuhauzeni reinfalze Tu noihauzeni rainis CanCqerze da
a.S.;
• mxareebis/regionebis/federaluri miwebis/administraciuli erTeulebis aRmniS-
vneli saxelebis gadmoqarTulebisas arCevanis gakeTeba ori xerxidan erT-erTis
sasargeblod _ gadmoqarTuleba anu Zireuli leqsemis SenarCuneba da masze qar-
Tuli mawarmoeblebis (sa_eTi / _eTi / _ia) darTva Tu saxelis ucvlelad gadmo-
tana. aseTebia: Bayern / Thüringen / Sachsen / Niedersachsen / Schwaben / Hessen / Pommern /
Franken / Saarland..., Sewyvilebuli saxelebi: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern / Nordrhein-Westfalen /
Schleswig-Holstein / Rheinland-Pfalz / Baden-Württemberg / Sachsen-Anhalt...; romel versias mi-
vaniWoT upiratesoba qvemoSemoTavazebulidan, davuSvaT: Sachsen zaqseni Tu saqso-
nia / Schwaben Svabeni, Svabia Tu SvabeTi / Saarland zaarlandi Tu zaaris mxare
(zaaris federaluri miwa _ rogorc administraciuli erTeuli) da a.S. Sachsen-is
SemTxvevaSi SeiZleba msjeloba ganvagrZoT: Tu saqsonias ufro misaReb formad
CavTvliT, maSin ra vuyoT Sachsen-Anhalt-s, gadmovaqarTuloT rogorc saqsonia-an-
halti Tu davtovoT zaqsen-anhalti. am konteqstSi ar SeiZleba sagangebod ar
SevCerdeT Bayern-ze, romlis tradiciul qarTul ekvivalentadac bavariaa miCneu-
li regionis/federaluri miwis mniSvnelobiT, Tumca imave saxelwodebis fexbur-
Tis gundi qarTulSi baiern-is saxeliT aris Semosuli; analogiuri toponimebi,
romelTa gadmoqarTulebac Wirs, sxvac bevria germanulSi, rac imasac ar gamo-
ricxavs, gamosavali (bunebrivia, xelsayrel SemTxvevaSi) aRwerilobiTi/sinonimu-
ri formis SemotanaSi an sxva toponimis moSveliebaSi veZeboT, magaliTad:
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern meklenburg-forpomerni, meklenburgi-winapomerania Tu mek-
lenburgi-dasavleTpomerania, radgan germaniis teritoriaze mdebare Vorpommern
dasavleTad iTvleba poloneTis teritoriaze mdebare Hinterpommern-is anu ukana-
/aRmosavleTpomeraniis mimarT;
• zogierT SemTxvevaSi originalis enaze saxelis fonemuri suraTis SeuTavsebadoba
TviT am enis fonologiur sistemasTan, rac SesaZloa istoriulad, saxelis eti-
mologiiT iyos Sepirobebuli da ekvivalentis SerCevisas qmnides saWiroebas, na-
sesxobis enas/amosaval enas daveyrdnoT. aRwerili movlena SedarebiT epizodu-
ria germanulisTvis, magram ara ucxo: Corvey [»k´rvai] / Grevenbroich [gre˘vn»bro˘x]...;
• originalis enaze saxelis grafemuli suraTis araidenturoba fonemurTan, ra-
sac amjerad ukve ara epizoduri, aramed sistematuri xasiaTi aqvs, e.i. enis sis-
temuri kanonzomierebiT aris nakarnaxevi. am SemTxvevaSi sirTuleebs is qmnis,
Tu rogor gavavloT zRvari transponirebis TvalsazrisiT relevantur da ara-
73
marina andrazaSvili
relevantur fonologiur movlenebs Soris. davuSvaT, miviCnioT transponirebis

Rirsad: bolokiduri marcvlis reducireba: Alster [»alstå] alster-i Tu alsta /
Paderborn [pa˘då»bçrn] paderborn-i Tu padaborn-i / Greven [»gre˘vń] greven-i Tu grevn-i.
mJReri Tanxmovnis gadasvla yru TanxmovanSi marcvlis dasasruls/ gasayars:
Bamberg [»bambErk] bamberg-i Tu bamberk-i / Bitterfeld [»bIt´r»fElt] biterfeld-i Tu bita-
felt-i / Brend [»brEnt] brend-i Tu brent-i, sisina Tanxmovnisa _ SiSinaSi Ems [»Ems]
emz-i Tu ems-i... da a.S.; sxvagvarad, mivakuTvnoT Tu ara zemoilustrirebuli movle-
nebi imave rangis fonologiur cvlilebebs, romelTa relevanturobac transpo-
nirebis TvalsazrisiT eWvs ar badebs, anu romelTac qarTulad ara amosavali
calkeuli grafemebis, aramed grafemaTnaerTis Sesatyvis Tanxmovans mivusada-
gebT, kerZod rogorebicaa: sch b [S] / tsch b [tS] / st b [St] / sp b [Sp]: Schmalkalde
[»Smal»ka˘ld´] Smalkalde / Crimmitschau [»krImItSao] krimiCau / Staufen [»SÌtaofń]
Staufen-i / Spree [»Spre˘] Spree... da a.S.;
• erTi da imave grafemis/grafemaTa kompleqsis realizaciis SesaZlebloba ramde-
nime urTierTgansxvavebuli fonemuri versiis/kombinatoruli variantis saxiT Se-
sabamisad garemocvisa, rac TavisTavad SesaZloa ama Tu im etapze enis fonemuri
sistemis cvalebadobiTac iyo Sepirobebuli. SevadaroT, erTi mxriv: c-grafemis ori
[ts]/[k]--fonemuri varianti toponimebSi: Celle [» tÌsEl´] cele da ara *kele / Calf [»kalf]
kalfi da ara *calfi / Crimmitschau [»krImItÌSao] krimiCau, meore mxriv ki [ts]-fonemis
realizaciis SesaZlebloba sami c/z/tz-grafemis saSualebiT toponimebSi: Celle [»tÌsEl´]
cele / Zittau [»tÌsItao] citau / Zeitz [»tÌsaItÌs] caic-i; analogiurad, erTi mxriv, ch-asoT-
naerTis Sesatyvisad sami [C]/[x]/[k]-fonemuri variantis arseboba toponimebSi:
Lichtenberg [»lICtń»bErk] lihtenberg-i / Zürich [»tÌsy˘rIC] ciurih-i / Buchholz [»bu˘x»hçltÌs]
buxholc-i / Ansbach [»ansbax] ansbax-i / Cham [»ka˘m] qam-i, meore mxriv ki: [C]-fonemis
reprezentacia ori grafemaTnaerTiT ch/ig saxelebSi: Lichtenstein [»lICtń»SÌtaIn] lih-
tenStain-i / Danzig [»dantÌsIC] dancig-i (magram qarTulad ara dancih-i, radgan bolo-
kiduri daxuruli marcvlis gaxsnis Semdeg ig [IC]-fonemaTnaerTi gadadis [Ig]-Si:
Danziger Schloss [»dantsIgå ...]);
• sagrZnobi asimetriuloba germanuli da qarTuli enebis xmovanTa sistemebs So-
ris, rac gansakuTrebuli simZlavriT vlindeba germanulisTvis specifikuri um-
lautebis, difTongebis, naxevarxmovnebis, aseve grZeli da mokle xmovnebis qar-
Tulad gadmotanisas. Seadare: Münster ['mYnstå] miunster-i / Köln ['kQln] keln-i Tu
kioln-i / Torgau ['to˘rgaÌo] torgau / Jüterbog ['jutå»bçk] iuterbog-i / Sylt ['zylt] zult-i
Tu zilti / Lahn ['la˘n] lani Tu laani, analogiurad Saale ['sa˘le] zaalesi, radgan
orive SemTxvevaSi gansxvavebuli grafemuli gamoxatulebis aa/ah erTsa da imave
fonemasTan, kerZod, grZel [a˘]-sTan asocirdeba. vfiqrobT, saerTodac sagangebo
gansjis sagans warmoadgens xmovanTa sigrZe-simokle (romlis diferenciaciac
qarTulSi ar xdeba) germanuli toponimebisTvis qarTuli ekvivalentebis daZeb-
nisas, Tundac imitom, rom am movlenas germanulSi fonematiuri datvirTuloba
aqvs. naTqvamis sailustraciod sakmarisia SevudaroT qvemomotanili germanul
toponimTa wyvilebi maT zRvarwaSlil qarTul ekvivalents, kerZod, ori saxeli:
Nidda ['nIda] mainis marjvena Senakadi da Nida ['ni˘da] yofili romauli dasaxleba
dRevandeli mainis frankfurtis teritoriaze _ davupirispiroT qarTul ekvi-
valents nida, romelSic opozicia neitralizebulia. sxvaoba aseve waSlilia
74
dame-s SemTxvevaSic, romlis grZelxmovnian versiaSi Dahme ['da˘me] mdinare Sprees

marcxena Senakadi igulisxmeba, moklexmovnianSi Damme ['dame] _ ki qalaqi qvemo-
saqsoniaSi;
• transkrifciuli Canaweris ararseboba germanul geografiul saxelTa leqsiko-
nebSi an misi arseboba mxolod gamonaklisis saxiT fragmentulad/nasesxobebTan,
rac enis matareblisTvis SesaZloa savsebiT damakmayofilebelic iyos, magram
ara orTografiuli leqsikonis ucxoeli SemdgenlisTvis; aRwerili viTarebis
gamo aqtualuri toponimis transkrifciuli Canaweris moZiebis aucilebloba
germanuli enis did sawarmoTqmo leqsikonSi, rac TavisTavad damatebiT Zalis-
xmevas ukavSirdeba, SesaZlo uaryofiT Sedegze (warmoudgenelia, zemoxsenebul
leqsikonSi CarTuli iyos uklebliv yvela toponimi) rom aRaraferi vTqvaT;
• rusulis, rogorc Sualeduri enis diqtatis, marTalia, ramdenadme Sesustebuli,
magram jer kidev SemorCenili uaryofiTi zegavlena (ix. qvemoT). sazogadod, Su-
aleduri enis moSvelieba geografiul saxelTa SemTxvevaSi gamarTlebuli meTo-
dia rogorc fonologiuri, ise pragmatuli TvalsazrisiT, radgan igi saxelis
JReradobis koreqtulobasTan erTad mis met-nakleb internacionalizacias, anu
saerTaSoriso masStabiT gasagebadobas, uzrunvelyofs. amisi dadebiTi nimuSebia
qarTulSi: Österreich avstria da ara *iosterraihi / Roma romi da ara *roma / Schweiz
Sveicaria da ara *Svaici da a.S.; magram sagangebo gadasinjvis Rirsia is SemTxve-
vebi, roca Sualedur enas garkveuli disonansi Seaqvs mSobliur enaSi, an sulac
ekvivalentis Secdoma-uzustobis wyarod iqceva.
_ subieqturi xasiaTis faqtorebidan moxseniebis Rirsia:

• calkeuli individis mier saWiroebisamebr saxelis spontanuri/sacnobaro lite-
raturaSi gadaumowmebeli gadatana ucxouri enidan mSobliurze da am procesSi
mxolod sakuTar gemovnebaze, gamocdilebaze, erudiciasa Tu enobriv alRoze
dayrdnoba. aRwerili fenomeni SedarebiT iSviaTia, davuSvaT, samecniero weri-
lobiT diskursSi, magram sakmaod gavrcelebulia zepir metyvelebaSi (sazogado
moRvaweTa/politikosTa/JurnalistTa/moderatorTa/TarjimanTa da a.S. sajaro ga-
mosvlebSi). uaryofiTi am SemTxvevaSi is aris, rom Sedegad matulobs msmenelTa
mxridan araswori formis maSinve atacebisa da Semdgom misi aseve arasworad ga-
moyenebis albaToba;
• sazogadoebis mxridan erovnuli mentalobis ramdenadme stabiluroba-konserva-
tuloba, saazrovno procesebis egocentrizmi, Sesabamisad ki axalSemoTavazebu-
li versiis ukve arsebulis filtrSi gatarebisas arCevanis gakeTeba tradiciu-
lis/SeCveulis sasargeblod. am SemTxvevaSi mniSvnelovani faqtoria asakobrivi
zRvari Taobebs Soris, iseve rogorc kulturuli tradiciebisa da esTetikuri
Sexedulebebis zegavlena;
• viwro dargobrivi jgufebis mxridan profesiuli maxsovrobis stabiluroba-kon-
servatiulobasTan erTad praqtikul-profesiuli interesebis dacvis instinqti,
ramdenadac maTTvis yovel axal, Tundac ufro koreqtul/progresul formaze
gadasvla upirvelesad dargobriv literaturaSi Sesabamisi cvlilebis Setanis
aucilebel, magram imavdroulad Sromatevad da naklebsasiamovno procesTan
asocirdeba (sakmarisia warmovidginoT, Tu ramdeni Zalisxmevis fasad ujdeba
kartografs Tundac erTi orTografiaSecvlili saxelis gadatana sxvadasxva
profilisa da daniSnulebis rukaze).
winamdebare publikaciaSi zemoganxilul sirTuleTa gaTvaliswinebiT ise vikvlieT
germanuli toponimebi (sxva qveynis toponimebi an pirTa saxelebi mxolod zogan pa-
75
marina andrazaSvili
ralelis gasavlebad moviSvelieT) da maTi qarTuli ekvivalentebi, rom SevecadeT

sinqronulad SedarebiTi analizic wargvemarTa TviT qarTulSi arsebul variantu-
lobasTan mimarTebiT sam werilobiT wyaroze _ sazRvargareTis qveynebis geografi-
ul saxelTa orTografiul leqsikonze, qarTul msoflio atlasze da qarTul in-
ternet-saitebze ganTavsebul germaniis rukaze (ix. bibliografia) _ dayrdnobiT;
imavdroulad SeZlebisdagvarad vakvirdebodiT aseve mediis enasa da saurTierTo/
salaparako qarTuls.
Sedegad gamoikveTa sruliad arahomogenuri suraTi (sailustracio masala, sis-
temurad klasificirebuli, ix. qvemoT), romlis analizmac migviyvana erT ganzoga-
debul daskvnamde: Tanamedrove adamianis, maT Soris Tundac rigiTi qarTvelis,
cnobierebaSi msofliom sruliad sxva masStabebi SeiZina. samyaros mowyobis axle-
burma suraTma, sazogadoebrivi yofierebis yvela sferoSi damkvidrebulma Riaobam,
sabazro ekonomikisa da ucxoeTTan kulturul-saganmanaTleblo-samecniero Tanam-
Sromlobis inovaciurma modelma, nebismieri saxis turizmis ganviTarebam, Sereulma
qorwinebebma gazarda individis, gansakuTrebiT axalgazrda adamianis, geografiuli
Tvalsawieri da misi praqtikul-mxareTmcodneobrivi gamocdileba (sagulisxmoa,
rom sazogadoebaSi mimdinare es cvlilebebi germanul enaSic airekla am bolo dros
Seqmnili terminebiT: erlebte Landeskunde / erlebte Geographie anu gancdili mxareTmcodneo-
ba / sakuTari TvaliT nanaxi/xiluli geografia). aRwerili fenomenis dadebiTi Se-
degi is gaxda, rom salaparako, cocxalma qarTulma, iseve rogorc Tanamedrove qar-
Tulma msoflio atlasma da internet-gverdebze SemoTavazebulma masalam, ramdeni-
me nabijiT gauswro win sazRvargareTis qveynebis geografiul saxelTa orTografi-
uli leqsikoniT SemoTavazebul erTeulebsa da dakanonebul normebs upirvelesad
ricxobrivad, magram, rac mTavaria, imavdroulad Tvisobrivadac, kerZod ki, am mi-
marTebiT msoflioSi fexmokidebuli axali tendenciis angariSgawevis _ anu sakuTa-
ri saxelis translirebisas amosavlad misi fonemuri da ara grafemuli suraTis
aRiarebis _ TvalsazrisiT. Tumca ver vityviT, ramdenad gacnobierebulad, radgan
ar mogvepoveba aranairi informacia imis Taobaze: icnobdnen Tu ara qarTuli in-
ternet-rukisa da qarTuli msoflio atlasis Semdgenlebi erTmaneTis naRvaws da
orive erTad maT winamorbed orTografiul leqsikons; Tu icnobdnen, ramdenad ra-
cionalurebi iyvnen misdami kritikuli midgomisas; gadiodnen konsultaciebs lin-
gvistebTan da wina Taobis kartografebTan, Tu moqmedi formebis uaryofisa da maTi
axliT Canacvlebisas eyrdnobodnen mxolod sakuTar intuicias, yuriT daWerilsa
da SemTxveviT amokiTxuls; sxvagvarad, maTi SemoTavazebebi _ bevrjer sruliad mi-
saRebic _ iyo logikuri analizis nayofi Tu mxolod TaobaTa Soris gansxvavebu-
lobis gaucnobierebeli, spontanuri gamoZaxili. sakiTxavia isic, Tu ras miiCnev-
dnen isini kriteriumad germanul toponimTa dokumentSi Setana-arSetanis dasadge-
nad: ricxobriv monacemebs (davuSvaT, qalaqis sidides mosaxleobis raodenobis mi-
xedviT), geografiuli realiebis mniSvneloba-popularobas, maT aqtualobas qarTve-
li sazogadoebisTvis... Tu toponimTa translireba-transponirebis simartives. saki-
Txis ase dayenebis _ gansakuTrebiT ki atlasisa da internet-rukis sistemurobaSi,
winaswar SemuSavebul erTian kriteriumTa arsebobaSi eWvis Setanis _ safuZvels
gvaZlevs, erTi mxriv, SeuTavsebadoba am or dokuments Soris; meore mxriv ki, TiTo-
eul maTganSi avtonomiurad arsebuli ganmeorebadi Secdomebi, iseve rogorc erTi
da imave kanonzomierebisTvis erTdroulad ori gansxvavebuli gamosavlis monaxvis
faqtebi; aRarafers vambobT SemTxveviT/erTeul Secdomebze, romlebic samive wyaro-
Si SeiniSneba: *dortmudi (atlasi 58_59:B 6), nacvlad dortmund-isa Dortmund / *por-
chaimi (atlasi 58_59:C 10), nacvlad pforchaim-isa Pforzheim / zeele (atlasi 58_59:F 6),
nacvlad zaale-si Saale... *Zugersee/*Thunersee (leqsikoni), nacvlad Zuger See/Thuner See-si
da a.S.
76
sxvagvari Sedegi arc iyo mosalodneli: metyvelebam/enam aiTvisa is progresu-

li/moduri, romlis gadamowmeba-korigirebac ver moaswro leqsikonma. Tumca saqmis-
Tvis ajobebda, piruku movlenas hqonoda adgili, anu kanonmdebeli yofiliyo or-
Tografiuli leqsikoni, rogorc erTgvari instituciuri mniSvnelobis dokumenti,
romelsac daeyrdnoboda rogorc calkeuli individi, ise atlasi da internet-ruka.
amiT nebismieri maTgani Tavidan aicilebda gaucnobiereblad daSvebul Secdomebs
paralelur/simetriul formebSi mainc.
naTqvamTan mimarTebiT ismeba kiTxva, Tu ra viTarebaa dRevandeli gadasaxedidan
zemoxsenebul ZiriTad dokumentSi _ anu amJamad moqmed sazRvargareTis qveynebis
geografiul saxelTa orTografiul leqsikonSi _, romelic 1989 wels qarTuli
sabWoTa enciklopediis mTavari samecniero redaqciis TaosnobiT Sedga, da SeiZleba
Tu ara masze dayrdnoba. am leqsikonma Tavis droze namdvilad didi saqme gaakeTa;
kerZod, mas unda vumadlodeT, rom enidan ganidevna rusulis zegavleniT Semosuli,
aTwleulebis manZilze moqmedi arakoreqtuli formebi germanul toponimTa aRsaniS-
nad: *veimari Weimar / *geilbroni Heilbronn / *ganoveri Hannover / *gamburgi Hamburg...
da maT sanacvlod damkvidrda: vaimari / hamburgi / hailbroni / hanoveri (analogiu-
rad pirTa saxelebSic: *stefan cveigi Stefan Zweig / *tomas mani Thomas Mann / *gete
Goethe / *genrix geine Heinrich Heine / *gendeli Hendel... Canacvlda koreqtuli forme-
biT: Stefan cvaigi / Tomas mani / goeTe / hainrih haine / hendeli...) da a.S.; magram, me-
ore mxriv, arc im Secdoma-uzustobebze SeiZleba Tvalis daxuWva, romlebsac es
leqsikoni Seicavs da romlebic, Cveni azriT, seriozul Seswavla-korigirebas saWi-
roebs Tanamedroveobis poziciebidan, miT umetes, rom amisi aucilebloba _ leqsi-
konis gamosvlidan oci wlis gasvlis Semdeg _ sazogadoebaSi realurad momwifda.
vfiqrobT, aseve aucilebelia zrunva masSi germanul toponimTa srulyofili pre-
zentaciisTvis, Tuki gaviTvaliswinebT (garkveul garemoebaTa gamo) dasavleTgerma-
nuli (anu germaniis federaciuli respublikis) realiebis SedarebiT mwired war-
modgenis faqts aRmosavleTgermaniis (anu yofili demokratiuli respublikis) rea-
liebTan SedarebiT.
am mimarTebiT SevecadeT _ samomavlod savaraudo rekomendaciebis Camosayalibeb-
lad garkveuli safuZvlebis momzadebis mizniT _ lingvistur principebze dagvefuZne-
bina gamovlenil Secdoma-uzustobaTa aRwera da warmogvedgina isini sistemuri wesiT:
• samive zemoxsenebul dokumentSi ganTavsebul toponimTa qarTuli ekvivalentebi
mxolod maSin emTxveva erTmaneTs, da TavisTavad koreqtuladac miiCneva, roca
saxelis fonemuri suraTi originalis enaze isedac identuria grafemulisa da,
Sesabamisad, arc translacia-transponirebisas gviqmnis sagangebo sirTuleebs.
aRniSnuli tipis saxelTa gadmoqarTulebisas mxolod erTi garemoebaa gasaTva-
liswinebeli _ fuZis bolokiduri bgeris ragvaroba:
- bolokidurxmovniani (rogorc monofTongiani, ise difTongiani) toponimebi,
wesisamebr, ucvlelad gadmodis qarTulad. Seadare: Fulda fulda / Hoyerswerda
hoiersverda / Bode bode / Rheine raine / Spree Spree / Kleve kleve / Heidenau
haidenau / Ilmenau ilmenau / Schandau Sandau / Dessau desau da a.S.
- bolokidurTanxmovnian toponimebze ki aucilebelia saxelobiTi brunvis mar-
keris -i-morfemis darTva: Berlin berlin-i / Heidelberg haidelberg-i / Hamburg
hamburg-i / Bamberg bamberg-i / Kiel kil-i / Bremen bremen-i / Mannheim manhaim-i...
wesiT es universaluri kanonzomiereba (romelic damajereblobas namdvilad ar
aris moklebuli) daculi unda yofiliyo yvela sxva toponimTanac, Tuki normi-
dan gadasaxvevad sxva xelmosakidebeli mizezi ar gveqneboda, magram, rogorc
dakvirvebam gvaCvena, aRwerili kanonzomiereba atlasSi mainc irRveva, rac imiT ga-
77
marina andrazaSvili
movlindeba, rom Tanxmovanze daboloebul zogierT saxelTan -i-saxelobiTi bru-

nvis niSani Canacvldeba a-Ti, magaliTad: Ems *emza (atlasi: 58_59:B 4) / Konstanz
*konstanc-a (atlasi 58_59: D 11). leqsikoni swor formebs gvTavazobs: ems-i /konstanc-i.
igive iTqmis niderlandebis samefo-sarezidencio qalaq Den Haag-is mimarTac, ro-
melic yvela wyaroSi moxseniebulia rogorc *haag-a. vfiqrobT, marTebuli iqne-
boda haagi, miT umetes, rom leqsikoni misi analogiuri fuZe-leqsemis mqone Ha
Dong – vietnamuri toponimis Caweras zemoganmartebuli wesis mixedviT gvTava-
zobs, anu: hadongi da ara *hadonga (calke msjelobis sagania, Tu ratom uSvebs
leqsikoni am tipis orkomponentian toponimTa Caweras ori gansxvavebuli wesiT:
Ha Dong hadongis, iseve rogorc Des Moines (aSS) ['dImçIn] de-moinis SemTxvevaSi pir-
veli komponentis SenarCunebiT da Den Haag *haaga-sTan Den-is, rogorc iSviaTi
movlenis, ugulebelyofiT. am dros Den niderlandurSi Haag-is ganuyofel Se-
madgenel nawilad miiCneva da Sesatyvisad umaxvilod, mokle daxuruli e-Ti da
daxuruli gadasvliT [den»ha˘x] warmoiTqmis).
vfiqrobT, leqsikoni, iseve rogorc atlasi, umarTebulod iqceva xmovanze
daboloebul zogierT saxelTanac, roca rusulis zegavleniT bolokidur e-s
anacvlebs a-xmovniT, rogorc, magaliTad, toponimebSi: Rho^ne [»ro˘ne] *ron-a nac-
vlad rone-si / Elbe *elba nacvlad elbe-si; Tumca Semdeg is TviTonve arRvevs
sakuTar SemoTavazebas, roca analogiuri fonemuri struqturis Elde-s (Elbe-s mar-
jvena Senakads) qarTul ekvivalentad miusadagebs elde-s da ara *elda-s. sagu-
lisxmoa isic, rom zemoaRwerili cvlilebis Sedegad: Elbe elbe-s SemTxvevaSi
xdeba germanuli mdinaris saxelis damTxveva kunZul Elba elba-sTan italiaSi,
germanuli qalaq Konstanz konstancisa ki _ rumineTis saporto qalaq Constạnţa
konstanca-sTan. Zneli saTqmelia, ra funqciur datvirTulobas aniWeben leqsiko-
nis avtorebi am a-s: miiCneven mas savrcob/damxmare fonemad da amdenad fuZis Semad-
genel nawilad, Tu, davuSvaT, morfemad msgavsad saxelobiTis i-sa. faqtia, rom
naTesaobiT brunvaSi leqsikoni uSvebs a-s kvecas: ron-is arxi / elb-is qviSiani
mTebi / haag-is tribunali...; savaraudoa, is moqmedebdes a-bolokidurxmovniani
toponimebis: afrika _ afrikis / amerika _ amerikis... analogiiT, magram albaT am
movlenis xelaRebiT gadatanas a-ze daboloebuli germanuli warmomavlobis sa-
xelebis Gera ge-ra / Fulda fulda / Eldena eldena / Gotha goTa...-s mimarTac gadaxedva
sWirdeba. umjobesi xom ar iqneboda maTTvis fuZis bolokiduri xmovnis SenarCu-
neba, anu: geras mdebareoba / fuldas mosaxleoba / èldenas nangrevebi~ (saxel-
wodeba kaspar david fridrihis naxatisa) / goTas senati... nacvlad, cota ar iyos,
uxerxuli formebisa: *geris mdebareoba / *fuldis mosaxleoba / *eldenis nang-
revebi / *goTis senati...;
• qarTul orTografiul leqsikonSi SeiniSneba simetriulobis principis darRveva
erTtipuri/simetriuli umlautebis ü/ue [y˘]/[y] / ö/oe [O˘]/[Q], iseve rogorc ä/ae [E˘]/[E]-s
transponirebis SemTxvevaSi, saxeldobr:
- leqsikoni, erTi mxriv, samarTlianad uSvebs ü/ueb[y˘]/[y]-umlautis gadmotanas
iu-asoTnaerTiT: Lübeck [»ly˘bEk] liubeki / Düsseldorf [»dyseldçrf] diuseldorfi /
Warnemünde [»varne»mynd´] varnemiunde / Würzburg [»vyrzbUrk] viurcburgi...; mis am
pozicias iziarebs danarCeni ori wyaroc _ Tanamedrove qarTuli msoflio
atlasi da qarTuli internet-ruka (ris gamoc nimuSebs aRar davimowmebT);
- meore mxriv ki, leqsikoni ö/oeb[O˘]/[Q]-umlautis Sesatyvisad e-grafemas gvTa-
vazobs: Köln [»kQln] *keln-i / Döbeln [»dO˘bEln] *debelni / Schönebeck [»SO˘n»bEk]
*Senberk-i / Görlitz [»gO˘rlItÌs] *gerlic-i / Göttingen [»gQtIngń] *getingen-i..., rasac
78
aRar iziarebs danarCeni ori wyaro da SemoTavazebul e-s sruliad calsaxad

upirispirebs -io-asoTnaerTs: Köln kioln-i (internet-ruka) / Görlitz giorlic-i
(atlasi 58_59:I 7) / Göttingen giotingen-i (atlasi 58_59:E 6) / Altötting altioting-i
(atlasi 58_59:G 11) da a.S.;
- germanul toponimebSi naklebgavrcelebuli äb[E˘]/[E]-umlautis gadmotanisas
leqsikoni icavs normas saxelSi: Vänern (Sved.) [»vE˘nErn] venern-i, magram msgavsi
Kärnten (avstria) [»kErntń] kernten-is ekvivalentad, vfiqrobT, rusulis zegavle-
niT *karintia-s gvTavazobs. am SemTxvevaSi paralelis gavlebis SesaZleblo-
bas, samwuxarod, moklebulni varT, ramdenadac nimuSad SemoTavazebuli to-
ponimebi danarCen or wyaroSi ar aris asaxuli;
• arasworad aris gadmotanili atlasSi, iseve rogorc internet-rukaze eu/äu/au-
difTongebi: Allgäu [al»gçÌy] *algeu (atlasi 58_59:E 12), nacvlad algoi-isa / Plauen
[»plaÌoń]*ploieni (atlasi 58_59:G 8), nacvlad plauen-isa..., eu-s gadmosacemad ki atlasi
paralelurad or asoTnaerTs gvTavazobs _ araswor au-s da swor oi-s, rogorc,
magaliTad, toponimebSi: Euskirchen [»çÌyskIrCçn] *auskirxen-i, nacvlad oiskirxen-isa
(atlasi 58_59:B 7) da Neuß [»nçÌys] nois-i (atlasi 58_59:B 7). am mxriv leqsikonSi da-
culia koreqtuloba;
• arasworad migvaCnia ow-bolokiduri marcvlis reducirebis Sedegad miRebuli
[o]-monofTongis Canacvleba ou-asoTnaerTiT: Eberswalde-Finow [...»fIno] ebersvalde-
finou (atlasi 58_59:E 5), romlis Sesatyvisadac leqsikoni, vfiqrobT, rusulis
zegavleniT, Tumca ufro misaReb versias – ebersvalde-finov-s gvTavazobs. ana-
logebia: Treptow treptov-i [»trEpto] / Pankow [»panko] pankov-i / Güstrow [»gystro] gius-
trov-i...; saerTod calke gansjis sagania (rogorc zemoTac mivuTiTebdiT) am fo-
nologiuri movlenis _ bolokiduri marcvlis reducirebis _ relevanturoba-
ararelevanturoba transponirebis TvalsazrisiT; magram, Tu is ekvivalentebSi
maincdamainc orTografiuladac unda aisaxebodes, maSin albaT ajobebs upira-
tesoba ov-s an o-s mieces ou-sTan SedarebiT;
• samive wyaro radikalurad scildeba erTmaneTs TanxmovanTa bgeraTkompleqsebis
gadmotanisas; imavdroulad TiToeuli maTgani uSvebs garkveul asimetriulobas
TviT erTtipur toponimebTanac ki. kerZod: dausabuTeblad arRvevs transponire-
bis grafemuli da fonemuri principis gatarebis sworxazovnebas, ar gamijnavs
erTmaneTisgan transponirebis TvalsazrisiT relevantur da ararelevantur fo-
nologiur movlenebs (ix. zemoT) da a.S.; saxeldobr:
- -tz-asoTnaerTis (fonemuri realizacia [ts]) qarTulad gadmotanisas leqsikoni
orientirad ixdis saxelis fonemur suraTs da mas samarTlianad miusadagebs
c-grafemas: Lausitz [»laÌosItÌs] lauzic-i / Bautzen [»baÌotÌsń] baucen-i / Görlitz [»gQrlItÌs]
giorlic-i (da ara *lauzitc-i / *bautcen-i / *gerlitc-i)... am mosazrebas qarTuli
atlasic iziarebs, internet-rukaze es saxelebi samwuxarod ar aris warmodgenili;
- -ts-asoTnaerTs (fonemuri realizacia isev [ts]) leqsikoni ts-s miusadagebs,
riTac arRvevs -tz-s SemTxvevaSi zemoSemoTavazebul kanonzomierebas, anu amje-
rad usafuZvlod anacvlebs Caweris fonemur princips grafemuliT. vfiqrobT,
qarTulSi c-grafema ufro misadagisi iqneboda: Potsdam [»pçtÌsdam] *potsdam-is
nacvlad pocdam-i, miT umetes, rom qarTuli atlasic (58_59:G 5) am formis mom-
xrea. amiT, upirvelesad, avicilebdiT qarTuli enis fonologiuri sistemis-
Tvis uCveulo bgeraTmimdevrobis Tavsmoxvevas da aRarc germanulis normas
davarRvevdiT;
79
marina andrazaSvili
- -dt-asoTnaerTi germanulSi realizdeba [t]-fonemis saxiT da misi daniSnuleba

mxolod winamavali xmovnis sigrZis Semoklebaa. amdenad is qarTulSi, wesiT,
-t-grafemiT unda gadmodiodes, Tumca mas leqsikoni dt-s miusadagebs. vfiq-
robT, msgavsi bgeraTmimdevroba, garda imisa, rom is germanul realobas ar
asaxavs, arc qarTuli enis fonologiuri sistemisTvis unda iyos mTlad misa-
Rebi: Rheydt [»raÌet] *raidt-i / Darmstadt [»darm»SÌtat] *darmStadt-i / Hardt [»hart]
*hardt-i / Ingolstadt [»INçl»SÌtat] *ingolStadt-i...; umjobesi iqneboda: raiti / harti /
darmStati... SesaZloa leqsikoni am SemTxvevaSi sifrTxiles iCens, rom -stadt-ze
daboloebuli qalaqis saxeli ar daemTxvas administraciul erTeuls Stati,
magram am oris ganmasxvaveblad isic kmara, rom qalaqis saxeli -stadt-Tan erTad
erT leqsikur erTeuls qmnis, maSin, roca Stats administraciuli erTeulis
funqciiT win sakuTari saxeli uZRvis naTesaobiT brunvaSi: pensilvaniis Stati/
virjiniis Stati / miCiganis Stati da a.S. axali qarTuli atlasi iziarebs
leqsikonis tradicias, internet-ruka ki -dt-s qarTulSi calsaxad t-grafemas
miusadagebs: rudolStat-i / darmStat-i / ingolStat-i / leneStati...;
- st-asoTnaerTi, romlis fonemuri Sesatyvisic aris [SÌt], qarTulSi Sesabamisad
St-s saxiT unda gadmodiodes. es kanonzomiereba marTlac daculia leqsi-
konSi mraval saxelTan, rogoricaa: Stuttgart [»SÌtUtgart] Stutgart-i / Sternberg
[»SÌtErn»bErk] Sternberg-i / Stendal [»SÌtEndal] Stendal-i / Staufen [»SÌtaufń] Staufen-i...,
magram dausabuTeblad irRveva iseTi saxelebis gadmoqarTulebisas, rogoricaa:
Unstrut [Un»SÌtrUt] *unstrut-i, nacvlad unStruti-sa / Neustrelitz [nçO»SÌtre˘lItÌs] *noist-
relic-i, nacvlad noiStrelici-sa. atlasSi, iseve rogorc internet-rukaze,
es kanonzomiereba daculia da st-s gamonaklisis gareSe yvelgan St aqvs misa-
dagebuli;
• fragmentuli/epizoduri angariSgaweva TanxmovanTa mJReroba-siyruis mimarT, kerZod:
- atlasSi zRvaria waSlili mJRer -s [z] da yru -ss/ß [s]-s Soris, rac imiT gamov-
lindeba, rom sworad aris gadmotanili, mag.: Bassum [»basum] basum-i (atlasi
58_59:D 4) / Sassnitz [»zasnI tÌs] zasnic-i (atlasi 58_59:H 2), magram arasworia Husum
*husumi (atlasi 58_59:D 2), nacvlad huzumi-sa / Saarbrücken [»za˘r»brykń] *saarbri-
ukeni (atlasi 58_59:B 10), nacvlad zaarbriuken-isa / Sylt [»zylt] *silti (atlasi
58_59:C 2), nacvlad zulti-sa / Neiße [»naÌes´]*naize (atlasi 58_59:I 7), nacvlad nae-
sesi. danarCen wyaroebTan paralelis gavlebis Sedegadac ver ikveTeba zusti
suraTi, radgan iqac darRveulia kanonzomiereba: Bassum/Husum/Sylt/Neiße/Sassnitz
ar aris warmodgenili internet-rukaze, zaarbriuken-Tan daculia sizuste.
leqsikonSi koreqtuladaa transponirebuli Sassnitz/Saarbrücken, samagierod ka-
nonzomiereba irRveva Sachsen-Tan, xolo Bassum/Husum/Sylt/Neiße masSi saerTod
ar aris warmodgenili.
- k/ck/ch/q/c-grafemebisadmi yvela poziciaSi xelaRebiT k-grafemis misadageba,
rogorc amas leqsikoni gvTavazobs, vfiqrobT, ar unda iyos marTebuli, miT
umetes, rom maT mier reprezentirebuli urTierTgansxvavebuli fonemebis
(romelTac mkafiod gamijnavs erTmaneTisgan germanelis metyveleba) diferen-
ciaciis saSualebas qarTulic iZleva zedmiwevniT sami Sesabamisi grafemis
k/q/c-s meSveobiT. amdenad:
savsebiT veTanxmebiT magari da rbili k/ck-s transponirebas qarTulSi
k-grafemiT, romelic samive wyaroSi erTnairadaa daculi: Rostock [»rçstçk] rostok-i
/ Klingeltal [»klINgel»ta˘l] klingeltal-i / Kassel [»kas´l] kasel-i / Koblenz [»ko˘blEn tÌs]
koblenc-i...;
80
gvinda sifrTxile gamoviCinoT Tavkidur poziciaSi moxvedrili ch-asoT-

naerTis (sityvis Sua an bolokidur poziciaSi moxvedrisas kombinatoruli
variantebis Sesaxeb ix. qvemoT) mimarT, radgan misi transponirebisas upirve-
lesad angariSgasawevia sakuTari saxelis sadauroba, kerZod: germanuli war-
momavlobis saxelebTan is qarTulad q-grafemiT unda gadmodiodes: Chemnitz
[»kEmnItÌs] qemnic-i da ara *kemnic-i (leqsikoni) an *xemnic-i (atlasi 58_59:G 8) /
Chiemsee [»ki˘m»ze˘] qimzee da ara *kimzee (leqsikoni) an *ximis tba (atlasi
58_59:G 12) / Christnach (luqsemburgi) [»krIstnax] qristnaxi da ara *kristnaxi an
*xristnaxi...; laTinurZiriani analogebia: Christus [»krIstUs] qriste da ara *kris-
te/*xriste / Chemie [»kemi˘] qimia da ara *kimia/*ximia...; igive iTqmis italiuri
warmomavlobis saxelTa mimarTac: Chianti ['ki9anti] qianti / Chiavari ['ki9a˘vari]
qiavari / Cherubini (kompozitori) [kErU»bInI] qerubini da ara *kianti/*kiavari/*keru-
bini/*xianti...; franguli warmomavlobis saxelebTan ch-s wesiT S-grafema enac-
vleba: Cherbourg [SEr'bu˘r] Serburi / Chartres [Sartr] Sartri..., inglisurZirianTan _
C-grafema: Chester ['tÌSestå] Cesteri da a.S.
c-grafemis transponirebis SemTxvevaSic aseve saWiroa erTdroulad vi-
xelmZRvaneloT misi poziciiTa da saxelis warmomavlobiT. marTebulia misi
gadmotana k-s saxiT toponimebSi: Calau [»kalaÌo] kalau / Coburg [»kç»bUrk] koburg-i
/ Cottbus [»kçtbUs] kotbus-i / Cuxhaven [»kUks»ha˘fń] kukshafen-i / Clausthal [»klaos»ta˘l]
klaustal-i da a.S., anu a/o/u-xmovnebis, iseve rogorc Tanxmovnebis wina pozi-
ciaSi, rogorc amas samive wyaroc mowmobs; magram Celle [»tÌsEl´] qarTulad unda
gadmodiodes rogorc cele, Sedegad Sua saukuneebSi germanulSi ganxorcie-
lebuli asibilaciisa kbc[ts] (Zetazismus, bergeri 1999:89) _ da ara kele, rogorc
es leqsikonsa da atlasSia warmodgenili; naTqvamis marTebulobas adastu-
rebs analogiuri toponimic Cecilienhof [tÌsE»tÌsIlIń»ho˘f] cecilienhof-i da ara
*kekilienhof-i. kontrastisTvis SegviZlia imave c-s warmoTqmis ilustrireba
italiuri warmomavlobis saxelebSi, romlebic qarTulSi C-grafemiT gadmog-
vaqvs: Ticino [tI»SÌtIno] tiCino da ara *ticino / Cellini [SÌtE»li˘ni] Celini da ara *ce-
lini da a.S.
vfiqrobT, umjobesi iqneboda, qu-sTvis qarTuladac qv-asoTnaerTi migve-
sadagebina, miT umetes, rom es bgeraTmimdevroba ar ewinaaRmdegeba qarTulis
fonologiur sistemas, anu: Quedlinburg [»kvedlin»bUrk]- qvedlinburg-i, nacvlad
leqsikonsa da atlasSi SemoTavazebuli kvedlinburg-isa. kontrastis naTel-
sayofad sakmarisia SevadaroT mkveTri k, realizebuli c/k-Ti, toponimebSi:
Cómo (italia) komo / Locárno (Sveicaria) lokarno / Komárno (slovakeTi) komarno... da
rbili fSvinieri q toponimebSi: Querfurt qverfurt-i / Quedlinburg qvedlinburg-i /
Quakenbrück qvakenbriuk-i..., romelTac germanelis metyveleba mkafiod gamij-
navs (ix. dudenis eleqtronuli versiis xmovani gverdebi).
- samive wyaroSi zRvari waSlilia sityvis Sua – an bolokidur poziciaSi mo-
xvedrili ch-asoTnaerTis or kombinatorul variants [C]-ih-lautsa da [x]-ax-
lauts Soris. ar SeiZleba erTi da imave grafemiT gadmodiodes is, rasac ger-
manuli sawarmoTqmo leqsikoni or sxvadasxva fonemas miusadagebs, Seadare,
erTi mxriv: Aachen [»a˘xń] aaxen-i / Glauchau [»glaÌoxao] glauxau / Eisenach [»aÌIzEnax]
aizenax-i da, meore mxriv: Zürich [»tÌsy˘rIC] *ciurix-i, nacvlad ciurih-isa / Lichtenberg
[»lICtń»bErk]*lixtenbergi, nacvlad lihtenbergi-sa / München [»myNCń] *miunxen-i,
81
marina andrazaSvili
nacvlad miunhen-isa / Gelsenkirche [»gElzń»kIrCe] *gelzenkirxe, nacvlad gelzen-

kirhe-si. sapirispirod am sami werilobiTi dokumentisa, qarTuli beWdviTi
mediis enaSi, iseve rogorc radiosa da televiziaSi, SeiniSneba [C]-ih-lautisa
da [x]-ax-lautis aSkara gamijvnis tendencia.
- arasworad aqvs misadagebuli Leipzig [»laeptÌsIC]-s *laifcig-i rogorc orTogra-
fiul leqsikonSi, ise qarTul atlasSi (58_59:G 7). Sesworebul versias laip-
cig-s gvTavazobs internet-ruka, ris sasargeblodac ganxiluli toponimis
rogorc grafemuli, ise fonemuri, anu transkrifciuli suraTic metyvelebs.
• analogiurobis principis darRveva SeiniSneba samive dokumentSi or – an metkom-
ponentian (tbebis/mTebis/tyeebis/zogierTi qalaqis) saxelTa translireba-Caweris
TvalsazrisiT, miuxedavad germanulSi maTi aRmniSvneli sintagmebis erTtipuro-
bisa an, sulac, identurobisa (ix. zemoT). Sedegad TviT erTi da igive wyaro er-
TmaneTis gverdiT gvTavazobs Caweris or asimetriul formas _ transponirebul-
sa da translirebuls, rom aRaraferi vTqvaT wyaroebs Soris arsebul araTan-
xvdenilobaze. SeadareT:
- erTi mxriv, leqsikonSi SemoTavazebuli versiebi: Starnberger See Starnber-
gerzee / Neusiedler See noizidlerzee..., meore mxriv ki: Zuger See cugis tba /
Thuner See Tunis tba; vfiqrobT, aRar saWiroebs komentars atlasSi daSvebuli
Secdomebi: Schweriner See Sverineris tba (atlasi 58_59:F 3) / Plauer See plaueris
tba (atlasi 58_59:G 4)..., Tuki am ekvivalentebs amosaval leqsemebTan
(aSchwerin / aPlau) mimarTebaSi ganvixilavT;
- analogiurad wina punqtSi ganxilulisa, leqsikons, erTi mxriv, ucvlelad
gadmoaqvs: Fichtelgebirge fixtelgebirge, meore mxriv ki Erzgebirge-s anacvlebs
qarTuli TargmaniT madniani mTebi, atlasi mis ekvivalentad ercis mTebs
(58_59:G 8) gvTavazobs; aseve ucvleladaa gadmotanili leqsikonSi Schwarzwald
Svarcvaldi, atlasSi mas Savi tyeebi (58_59:D 11) upirispirdeba. atlasi erTma-
neTis paralelurad gvTavazobs formebs: Frankenwald frankenvaldi (58_59:F 8)
da Thüringer Wald Tiuringiis tyeebi (58_59:E 7) / Böhmerwald bohemiis tyeebi (58_59:G
10), Tanac, ratomRac, tyeebi mravlobiTi ricxvis formiT. vfiqrobT, axsna
arc imas moeZebneba, ratom xmarobs atlasi erTsa da imave Ziris mqone saxe-
lebTan erT SemTxvevaSi Frankenwald frankenvald-s, meore SemTxvevaSi ki fran-
kiSe albi-s (58_59:E 7) Fränkische Alb;
- leqsikonSi, erTi mxriv, gvxvdeba translirebuli: Dortmund-Ems-Kanal dor-
tmund-emsis arxi da, meore mxriv ki, tranponirebuli: Göta Kanal geta-kanali...
danarCen or wyaroSi es erTeulebi ar aris Setanili;
- leqsikoni, erTi mxriv, momxrea imisa, rom ortoponimian qalaqis saxelSi mdi-
naris saxeli moixseniebodes qalaqTan erTad gadmoqarTulebuli formiT:
Frankfurt am Main mainis frankfurti / Frankfurt an der Oder oderis frankfurti, mag-
ram, meore mxriv, analogiur SemTxvevaSi Caweris sxva formas mimarTavs, kerZod:
Limburg an der Lahn limburg-an-der-lan-i / Eßlingen am Neckar eslingen-am-nekar...;
internet-ruka da atlasi pirveli ori saxelis SemTxvevaSi leqsikons mihyve-
ba, magram sxva analogiuri struqturis saxelebs samwuxarod ar gvTavazobs;
- vfiqrobT, irRveva leqsikonSi iseTi orleqsemiani saxelis gadmoqarTulebis
principic, rogoricaa: Nordrhein-Westfalen *CrdiloeTi rain-vestfalia (ris gamoc
iqmneba STabeWdileba, TiTqos SeiZleba, samxreTi rain-vestfaliac arsebobdes).
sagulisxmoa, rom amosaval toponimSi atributi CrdiloeTi naxmaria mxolod
mdinare rainis mimarT, razedac TviT federaluri miwis geografiuli mdebare-
obac metyvelebs, Sesabamisad saxelis aRwerilobiTi formac: vestfalia, rome-
lic mdebareobs rainis CrdiloeT welze = Crdilorainis vestfalia.
82
amrigad, winamdebare gamokvlevaSi Catarebuli analizi germanul geografiul sa-

xelTa qarTuli Sesatyvisebis koreqtulobis gamosavlenad SeiZleba met-naklebad
amowurulad miviCnioT qarTulenovani masalis simwiris gamo. gamovlenili araTan-
xvdeniloba zemowarmodgenil sam dokuments Soris, iseve rogorc TiToeul maTgan-
Si arsebuli Secdoma-uzustobebi, gvaZlevs safuZvels ramdenime praqtikuli das-
kvnisTvis:
• momwifda niadagi germanul toponimTa axali qarTuli orTografiuli leqsiko-
nis Sesadgenad, romelic gaxdeba ZiriTadi saxelmZRvanelo dokumenti yvela
sxva tipis analogiuri sacnobaro literaturisTvis _ iqneba es atlasi Tu in-
ternet-ruka _ radgan dauSvebelia, erTsa da imave germanuli toponimis ekviva-
lentad yoveli axali wyaro sakuTar versias gvTavazobdes. vfiqrobT, am tipis
leqsikoni aseve unda iqces sayrdenad kerZo pirTa samuSao laboratoriebisTvis,
im iuridiuli dawesebulebebisTvis, notarialur-saTarjimno biuroebisTvis da
a.S., romelTac TavianT yoveldRiur praqtikaSi geografiul saxelTa gamoyeneba
uxdebaT iuridiuli mowmobebis gacemisas Tu Targmanis Sesrulebisas;
• aucilebelia, arsebuli leqsikoni Seivsos axali masaliT, raTa igi maqsimalu-
rad srulyofilad warmosaxavdes germanul geografiul da politikur-adminis-
traciul realiebs. pirvelwyaros saxiT gamoyenebuli iyos aqtualuri germanu-
lenovani dokumentebi, romlebSic asaxuli iqneba germaniis gaerTianebis Semdeg-
droindeli cvlilebebi da daculi iqneba germanul saxelTa Caweris normebi
orTografiuli reformis (2007 wlis agvistos versiis) Sesabamisad;
• upirvelesad ki, raoden rTulic unda iyos, geograf-kartografTa da lingvis-
tTa erToblivi ZalisxmeviT momzaddes Tanamedroveobis gadasaxedidan geogra-
fiul saxelTa translireba-transponirebisTvis iseTi myari amosavali kriteri-
umebi (publikaciaSi ganxilul punqtebTan mimarTebiT), romlebic garkveulwi-
lad dagvicavs mosalodneli uzustobebisgan da imavdroulad dagvexmareba ki-
dec pirTa saxelebis transponirebaSi. bunebrivia, geografiul saxelTa hetero-
genulobis fonze ver SevZlebT unificirebis principis radikalur/maqsimalis-
tur gatarebas, magram zomieri logikurobisa da sworxazovnobis dacva analo-
giur/simetriul formaTa SemTxvevaSi garkveulwilad SeZlebs leqsikonis san-
doobis uzrunvelyofas.
gvinda imedi viqonioT, rom am mosamzadebel samuSaoTa racionalurad war-
marTvaSi winamdebare gamokvlevac Seitans Tavis wvlils.
gamoyenebuli literatura:
Brockhaus. Bibliographisches Institut & F. A. Brockhaus AG. Mannheim [CD-ROM]. 2003

Duden. Taschenbücher, Bd. 25. Geographische Namen in Deutschland. 2., überarbeitete Auflage von Dieter
Berger. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 1999
Duden – Deutsches Universalwörterbuch, 6. Aufl. Mannheim 2006 [CD-ROM].
Duden – Das Fremdwörterbuch, 9. Aufl. Mannheim 2007 [CD-ROM].
Duden – Richtiges und gutes Deutsch, 6. Aufl. Mannheim 2007 [CD-ROM].
Eisenberg, Peter. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Bd. 1 Das Wort. 3., durchgesehene Aufl. Stuttgart:
Metzler. 2006.
Hans-Heinrich, Wängler. Atlas deutscher Sprachlaute. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1968.
Landkarte. Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Gotha: Verlag Klett-Perthes. 2008.
Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. 1964.
msoflios atlasi: Tbilisi: gamomcemloba elfi. 2008.
83
marina andrazaSvili
saqarTvelos ssr mecnierebaTa akademia. arnold Ciqobavas saxelobis enaTmecniere-

bis instituti: sazRvargareTis qveynebis geografiuli saxelebis orTog-
rafiuli leqsikoni. Tbilisi: qarTuli sabWoTa enciklopediis mTavari
samecniero redaqcia. 1989. htt://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/.
MARINA ANDRAZASHVILI
SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES AT THE TIME OF TRANSPOSITION OF GERMAN GEOGRAPHICAL

NAMES INTO GEORGIAN AND THE EXISTING INACCURACIES
Summary
Due to the semantic and structural heterogeneity of geographical names, their translation from one language to
another is always linked with specific difficulties. Correctly found equivalents play a crucial role in unhampered
operation in such branches of science as geography, hydrography, cartography, etc., not to mention the importance
of using these names with their primary, practical purpose – i.e. mutual understanding in everyday communication.
The aim of the present publication is to study Georgian equivalents of German geographical names in their in-
terrelation, on the basis of three written sources – Spelling Dictionary of Geographical Names of Foreign Countries,
the Georgian World Atlas and the Georgian Internet-map, and also the basis of spoken Georgian; to describe from
linguistic positions the inaccuracies discovered in each of them, as well as differences and variances and to explain
their genesis.
The observation of empirical material has brought to light the hindering factors being at work in the process of
rendering into Georgian German place names proper: radical difference of the alphabetic systems of both languages;
sharp asymmetry of the phonemic systems, especially the vowel groups; irrelevance of the vowel length-shortness in
Georgian, whereas it has the phonemic character in German; frequent confusion of the graphemic and phonemic
principle at the time of transposition; lack of demarcation of relevant and irrelevant phonological phenomena from
the viewpoint of transposition; disregard of combinatorial variants of the consonant sounds/sound complexes in the
process of matching Georgian graphemes to them; the influence of the dictates of Russian, as an intermediary lan-
guage.
The classification of inaccuracies on the basis of illustrative material, offered in the present study, in my view,
will facilitate to a certain extent the formation of new, logical and consecutive criteria for the purpose of perfection
and correction-innovation of the existing Georgian sources.
84
nino daraselia
d. uznaZis ganwyobis Teoria kognitologiis WrilSi
rogorc cnobilia, kognitiurma paradigmam gansakuTrebuli adgili daimkvidra

Tanamedrove mecnierul azrovnebaSi. dResdReobiT kognitologia (kognitiuri mec-
niereba) aerTianebs yvela im fundamentur mecnierebas (enaTmecniereba, filosofia,
kognitiuri fsiqologia, xelovnuri inteleqti, neiromecniereba, anTropologia da
sxv.), romelic adamianis tvins, gonebasa da azrovnebiT da SemecnebiT procesebs Se-
iswavlis, anu termini kognitologia `qolgisebri~ terminia. kognitologia aris
aseve nimuSi imisa, rom mecnieruli azrovnebis Tanamedrove etapze calkeuli mov-
lenis srulyofili Seswavla mxolod interdisciplinaruli kvlevis meSveobiT
aris SesaZlebeli. interdisciplinaruli midgoma gansakuTrebul aqtualobas iZens
swored adamianis codnisa da SemecnebiTi procesebis kvlevisas. informaciis miRe-
ba, damuSaveba, sistematizacia, dagroveba da Senaxva, saWiroebisamebr garkveuli ti-
pis informaciis gamoZaxeba da komunikaciisas misi gamoyeneba, codnis mimarTeba
adamianis qcevasTan – es is sakiTxebia, romelTa Seswavla warmoudgenelia kompleq-
suri midgomis gareSe. kognitiuri mecnierebis konturebi gasuli saukunis 70-ian
wlebSi gamoikveTa, mis inteleqtualur safuZvlebad ki miCneulia 1950-ian wlebSi
Seqmnili jorj mileris naSromebi kognitiur fsiqologiaSi, noem Comskis TeoriaTa
wyeba mentaluri gramatikis Sesaxeb da aseve xelovnuri inteleqtis fuZemdeblebis
(j. makartis, m. minskis, a. niuelisa da h. saimonis) moZRvreba. Tumca, gacilebiT di-
dia im mecnierTa ricxvi, romlebmac TavianTi kvlevebiT didi wvlili Seitanes kog-
nitiuri paradigmis Camoyalibebasa da ganviTarebaSi. kognitiuri mecnierebis saTave-
ebis ganxilvisas aucileblad mimaCnia d. uznaZis ganwyobis Teoriis moxsenieba. ada-
mianis qcevis maregulirebeli mentaluri procesebis Semswavleli da amxsneli Teo-
ria – ase SeiZleba zogadad davaxasiaToT ganwyobis Teoria, romlis pirveli mona-
xazi, rogorc cnobilia, gasuli saukunis 20-ian – 30-ian wlebSi Seiqmna. statiis mi-
zania, daadginos ganwyobis Teoriis adgili kognitiuri mecnierebis istoriaSi.
kognitologiis gansazRvrebaTa Soris gansakuTrebul interess iwvevs stiven an-
dersonis (Anderson, 1988: 808) definicia; misi TvalsazrisiT, kognitologia Seiswav-
lis codnis garkveuli struqturebiT determinirebul adamianis qcevas. rogor
jdeba kognitologiis aRniSnuli gansazRvrebis sqemaSi d. uznaZis ganwyobis Teo-
ria? ganwyobis Teoriis mizania sworad daadginos, Tu rogor imarTeba adamianis
qceva, ramdenad aris misi marTvis meqanizmi mocemuli individSi da ra warmoadgens
mis fsiqologiur ganzomilebas.
warmoadgens ra qcevis zogad Teorias, ganwyobis Teoria efuZneba da aerTia-
nebs iseT bazisur kategoriebs, rogoricaa: pirovneba, qceva, cnobieri da aracnobie-
ri; aRniSnuli kategoriebi dialeqtikur mTlians qmnis; àracnobieri SeiZleba cno-
bierSi gadavides an piriqiT~ (uznaZe, 1977: 8), Sesabamisad, qmedebasa da cnobiers
gansazRvravs maTi winmswrebi fsiqikis ganwyobis done. es ukanaskneli ki aris Sede-
gi situaciuri, motivaciuri da operaciuli faqtorebis erTobliobisa, anu pirve-
lad fsiqikuri realoba asrulebs Suamavlis rols gare samyarosa da cnobiers
Soris. fizikuri da fsiqologiuri procesebis dialeqtikuri mTlianobis xazgasma
gansazRvravda Tavis droze ganwyobis Teoriis novatorul xasiaTs. d. uznaZis Tval-
85
nino daraselia
sazrisiT, Cvens cnobiers ganapirobebs socialuri da istoriuli faqtorebi. aqedan

gamomdinare, adamianis gonebis ZiriTadi funqciaa, ara mxolod asaxos realoba,
aramed warmoqmnas aRniSnuli realobis Sesatyvisi qceva:
`...azrovnebac pirvel rigSi socialuri kategoriis faqtad unda CavTvaloT. ueW-
velia, rom adamianma rogorc azrovneba, ise metyvelebac maSin daiwyo, roca igi sa-
zogadoebis wevrad iqca, radgan sazogadoebaSi erTad cxovreba da erTad moqmedeba
aucileblad moiTxovs rogorc erTs, ise meores~ (uznaZe, 1977: 306).
`... adamianis ZiriTadi unarebi: obieqtivacia, identifikacia da nominacia – rome-
lic socialuri cxovrebis pirobebSi aRmocendeba, Tavis mxriT, socialuri cxov-
rebis Semdgomi winsvlis fsiqologiur pirobad iqceva~ (uznaZe, 1977: 306).
`...adamiani, rogorc individi, amave dros fsiqologiurad sazogadoebis aqtiuri
monawile xdeba da misi individualuri fsiqikis meqanizmi erTdroulad misi socia-
lurad warmarTuli aqtivobis organodac iqceva~ (uznaZe, 1977: 307).
ganwyobis Teoriis mixedviT fizikur da fsiqologiur procesebs Soris mimar-
Teba uSualobis principiT imarTeba; fizikuri procesebi warmoadgens fsiqologiu-
ri procesebis uSualo ganmapirobebel mizezs. magaliTad, ganwyoba, romelic aris
individis specifikuri mdgomareoba, mzaoba, Seasrulos calkeuli qmedeba, erTi
mxriv, win uswrebs aRniSnul qmedebas, xolo, meore mxriv, rogorc aRiniSna, aris
Sedegi situaciuri, motivaciuri da operaciuli faqtorebis urTierTqmedebisa; anu,
ganwyobis cneba gulisxmobs rogorc subieqtur (individis moTxovnilebas, Seasru-
los garkveuli moqmedeba), aseve obieqtur (uSualo situacias, romelSic es moTx-
ovnileba realizdeba) faqtorebs. maSasadame, ra aris ganwyoba? aris is erTgvari
gegma, Cveni qcevis ganmsazRvreli mentaluri sqema? aRniSnul kiTxvaze pasuxs Tavad
ganwyobis Teoria iZleva.
ganwyobis cneba mWidro kavSirSia d. uznaZis mier gamoyofil cnobieris moqmede-
bis or gansxvavebul planTan, impulsurisa da gaSualebuli qcevis planTan. uzna-
Zis gansazRvrebiT: ìmpulsuri qcevis plans, ..... mis fsiqologiur specifikums, pir-
vel rigSi misi uSualoba Seadgens – is garemoeba, rom subieqti, iseve rogorc misi
aqtebic, mTlianad qcevis procesSia CarTuli~ (uznaZe, 1977: 134).
ìmpulsur qcevaSi CarTuli aqtebi mTlian jaWvs qmnian, isini qcevis mTlian
jaWvSi calke rgolebs warmoadgenen, im signalebis rols asruleben, romlebic
qcevis procesSi momdevno nabijebis stimulacias axdenen. maT ara aqvT sakuTari
damoukidebuli Rirebuleba, isini ar arseboben am rolis gareSe TavisTavad, am
qcevis procesidan gamoyofilad, romelSic mTlianad unaSTod arian CarTuli~ (uz-
naZe, 1977: 135).
impulsuri qceva igiveobisa da identurobis principebs efuZneba:
`Cven... samyaros Wvreta SegviZlia da vWvretT kidec mas, rogorc raRac moce-
muls, Tavis Tavis identurs da rogorc raRac iseTs, rac SeiZleba gameordes im-
denjer, ramdenjerac gnebavT, mokled rom vTqvaT, igi igiveobis logikuri princi-
pis mixedviT ganixileba. es garemoeba SesaZlebels xdis imas, rom adamians samyaro-
sadmi specifikuri damokidebuleba umuSavdeba – igi mis Semecnebas iwyebs~ (uznaZe,
1977: 309).
SeiZleba iTqvas, rom terminiT ìmpulsuri qceva~ uznaZe adamianis rogorc ver-
baluri, aseve araverbaluri qcevis rutinizebul, ritualizebul xasiaTs aRniSnavs.
Sesabamisad, ganwyoba SeiZleba ganvixiloT rogorc adamianis stereotipuli qcevis
damafiqsirebeli kognitiuri struqtura, rac imas gulisxmobs, rom aRniSnuli ter-
mini Seesabameba kognitologiaSi damkvidrebul iseT terminebs, rogorebicaa: frei-
mi (Minski 1975, Fillmore 1982, Charniak 1975, Goffman 1974, Hayes 1979), scenari (Sanford,GGarrod
1981), skripti (Schank, Abelson 1977), sqema (Bartlett 1932), sqemata (van Dijk 1986, Tannen 1979).
86
miuxedavad maT Soris arsebuli met-naklebi gansxvavebisa, CamoTvlili terminebi

afiqsireben adamianis unars, gamoitanos stereotipuli daskvnebi da gamoimuSaos
garkveuli damokidebuleba, ganwyoba gare samyaroSi arsebuli Cveuli sagnebisa da
movlenebis mimarT. amasTan erTad, iseve rogorc `ganwyoba~, aRniSnuli terminebi
individis mexsierebaSi samyaros Sesaxeb codnis organizebisa da saWiroebisamebr
mocemuli codnis aqtivaciis meqanizmebs gulisxmoben. xazgasasmelia is faqti, rom
ganwyobis cneba zemoCamoTvlili terminebisagan gansxvavebiT gacilebiT ufro ad-
re, me-20 saukunis dasawyisSi Seiqmna.
gansakuTrebul yuradRebas ipyrobs d. uznaZis mier gamoyofili qcevis meore
tipi, GgaSualebuli qceva, obieqtivacia. xSirad obieqtivaciis procesi adamianis
rogorc verbaluri aseve araverbaluri qcevis specifikur maxasiaTebels – Semoqme-
debiT aspeqts gulisxmobs; adamians Seswevs unari daarRvios impulsuri qcevis Se-
madgenel aqtTa meqanizebuli jaWvi da esa Tu is obieqti, Tu movlena axali kuTx-
iT aRiqvas. obieqtivaciis gamomwvvi mizezi SeiZleba impulsuri qcevis Semadgenel
aqtTa jaWvis SemTxveviTi Seferxeba iyos. moulodnelma winaaRmdegobam SesaZloa
daarRvios ritualizebuli qcevis Cveuli msvleloba da aqtTa jaWvis erT-erTi
rgoli subieqts axali TvaliT daanaxos. ase magaliTad, samizne enisa da kulturis
verbaluri Tu araverbaluri etiketis arcodnam, an metaforuli xasiaTis rutinis
pirdapiri TvalsazrisiT aRqmam da Sesabamisad araswori reaqciis gamoxatvam SesaZ-
loa komunikantTa Soris, sul mcire, gaugebroba gamoiwvios. ase magaliTad, amin-
dze saubari inglisuri kulturisaTvis maxasiaTebeli fatikuri komunikaciis nimu-
Sia; rogorc viciT, fatikuri komunikaciis erT-erTi principi komunikantis Tval-
sazrisis gaziarebaa. TviT Tbil da mzian amindSic ki, Tu Cveni mosaubre ukmayofi-
lebas gamoxatavs (“Terible weather, isn’t it?”), fatikuri komunikaciis TamaSis wesebidan
gamomdinare, Cven mas unda daveTanxmoT (“Yeah, awful”). Tumca, inglisuri kulturis
arcodnam SesaZloa SecdomaSi Segviyvanos, mosaubres SevekamaToT, rac fatikuri
komunikaciis ritualis CaSlas gamoiwvevs. daSvebuli Secdomis analizi, anu obieq-
tivaciis mizezis dadgena dagvexmareba aRniSnuli ritualis gaazrebasa da gaTavi-
sebaSi. anu, rogorc d. uznaZe aRniSnavs, òbieqtivaciis pirobebSi, subieqti mimar-
Tavs Tavis erT-erT specifikur unars – azrovnebas. azrovneba, romelsac xelT aqvs
fsiqikuri aqtivobis yvela saSualeba – yuradReba, dakvirveba, warmodgena – aRwevs
imas, rom mTeli rigi Ziebebis Sedegad sabolood Cerdeba subieqtis winaSe arsebu-
li amocanis gadawyvetaze~ (uznaZe, 1977: 316).
obieqtivaciis procesis gamowveva, anu stereotipuli qcevis rRveva, SesaZloa
komunikantis mizans warmoadgendes; gacruebuli molodinis gancda garkveul esTe-
tikur efeqts iwvevs da, rogorc viciT, farTod gavrcelebuli xerxia mxatvrul
literaturaSi, saxviT, kinosa Tu Teatralur xelovnebaSi. ase magaliTad, stereo-
tipad qceuli calkeuli Janris maxasiaTebelTa konfiguraciis Secvla, ukve kargad
nacnob, Janrobriv azrovnebas orginalur msvlelobas miscems da SesaZloa axali
Janrobrivi saxeobis warmoqmnis mizezi gaxdes; es ukanaskneli droTa ganmavlobaSi
stereotipad iqceva da kvlav obieqtivaciis procesia saWiro, rom ukve kargad nac-
nobi qcevis safuZvelze axali aRmocendes. SeiZleba iTqvas, rom qcevis impulsuri
da gaSualebuli saxeobebis dialeqtikuri mTlianoba da maTi monacvleoba indivi-
dis azrovnebiTi da socialuri evoluciis ganmapirobebli pirobaa:
`Cven vxedavT, rom adamianma, romelic socialur arsebad iqca, amave dros Tavis
individualur cxovrebaSi radikaluri gardatexis ganxorcielebis unari moipova,
misi ideuri SeCerebis, misi xelmeored gancdis unari. SeuCerebeli dinebis nacvlad
mas SesaZlebloba eZleva daakvirdes sinamdviles, rogorc raRac mocemulsa da
ganmeorebads. am gziT adamiani midis iqamde, rom igi samyaros Wvrets, ganicdis mas
87
nino daraselia
simSvidisa da uZraobis aspeqtSi, rogorc raRac Tavis Tavis identurs, ganmeorebiT

aRqmisa da zemoqmedebisaTvis misawvdoms~ (uznaZe, 1977: 309).
rogorc cnobilia, enas gansakuTrebuli adgili eTmoba ganwyobis TeoriaSi.
dimitri uznaZis TvalsazrisiT, igi Cveni pirovnuli ganwyobis erTaderTi Sida
formaa:
àdamians metismetad gauZneldeboda igiveobis cnobierebis faqtis gamoyeneba,
rom ar yofiliyo sityva, romelmac azris am gadamwyveti monapovris fiqsirebiT
adamians saSualeba misca aRadginos igi yovel mocemul momentSi. sityva Cven praq-
tikulad SesaZleblobas gvaZlevs visargebloT igiveobiT saWiroebisa da survilis
mixedviT~ (uznaZe, 1977: 305).
amgvarad, àucilebloba sityvisa, romelic adamianTan obieqtivaciis aqtis Sede-
gad da Semdeg identifikaciis safuZvelze aRmocendeba, saSualebas gvaZlevs gavi-
goT rogor unda gadaqceuliyo individualuri adamianis persona socialur adamia-
nur pirovnebad~ (uznaZe, 1977: 306).
amrigad, sityva, metyveleba gadamwyveti mniSvnelobisaa rogorc impulsuri qce-
vis, aseve obieqtivaciis procesis dros. gansakuTrebul interess iwvevs Semdegi
Tvalsazrisi:
`roca adamianis cnobierebaSi romelime SesaZlebeli Sinaarsi aRmocendeba, igi
masTan sityvis formas iRebs da kavSiri sityvasa da mis Sinaarss Soris imdenad
mWidroa, rom maTi erTmaneTisgan damoukideblad gaazrebis SesaZlebloba, SeiZleba
iTqvas, sruliad gamoricxulia. adamianis cnobierSi isini mWidro ganuyofeli kav-
SiriT arian warmodgenili~ (uznaZe, 1977:305). aRniSnuli Tvalsazrisi garkveulwi-
lad exmianeba kognitiuri lingvistikis erT-erTi fuZemdeblis – j. filmoris Sexe-
dulebas: `calkeul sityvasTan mimarTebaSi aucilebelia vicodeT, Tu romeli sce-
nis an scenaTa erTobliobis aqtivacias iwvevs is~ (Fillmore, 1982: 91). ramdenadac sity-
vasa da mis Sinaarss Soris mWidro kavSiri arsebobs, sityvis Sinaarsi ki konteq-
stualur mimarTebebsac gulisxmobs, calkeulma sityvam SesaZloa impulsuri qce-
vis meqanizmis amoqmedeba gamoiwvios, anu Seasrulos im pirveladi stimulis roli,
romelic adamianis ritualizebuli qcevis Semadgenel aqtTa jaWvs moZraobaSi mo-
iyvans. meore mxriv, sityvis da saerTod enis uCveulo, araordinaruli gamoyeneba
obieqtivaciis process gulisxmobs. enis gamoyenebis kreatiuli aspeqti swored obi-
eqtivaciis princips efuZneba. magaliTad, nawyvetSi galaktionis leqsidan:
qalaqSi, mtverSi waiqca bavSvi
nukris TvalebiT, TmiT – mimozebiT.
fraza `TmiT mimozebiT~ STambeWdav, moulodneli Sexamebis Semcvel xats Seicavs
da mkiTxvelSi obieqtivaciis process iwvevs; mkiTxveli enis SemoqmedebiTi gamoye-
nebis SedegiT tkbeba da Tavad aris SemoqmedebiTi Ziebis procesSi CarTuli (Tavis
warmosaxvaSi man asociaciurad unda daakavSiros Tmis faqtura da mimozis yvavili,
raTa galaktionis mier SemoTavazebuli xatis interpretacia SeZlos).
dakvirvebam cxadyo, rom cnebebi ènis gamoyenebis SemoqmedebiTi aspeqti~, rome-
lic n. Comskiseuli lingvistikis bazisuri cnebaa da `gacruebuli molodinis efeq-
ti~ (Tannen, 1979), romelic freimul semantikasTan asocirdeba, meti araferia, Tu
ara d. uznaZis mier aRwerili qcevis tipi òbieqtivacia~.
amrigad, zemoTqmulis safuZvelze SeiZleba davaskvnaT, rom dimitri uznaZis
ganwyobis Teoria, romelic gasuli saukunis pirvel naxevarSi Seiqmna kognitiuri
mecnierebis erT-erTi, fuZemdebluri naSromia; ganwyobis TeoriaSi warmodgenili
postulatebi: Tavad ganwyobis fenomeni, impulsuri da gaSualebuli qcevis tipebi,
adamianis qcevisaTvis maxasiaTebeli kreatiuli aspeqti, enisa da azrovnebis dia-
88
leqtika da maTi mimarTeba qcevasTa.n da sxv. – es is sakiTxebia, romlebic aqtiu-

rad ganixileba kognitologiaSi, gansakuTrebiT kognitiur lingvistikaSi (kerZod,
freimul semantikaSi). Tumca, aRniSnul sferoSi momuSave mecnierebi, xSir SemTxve-
vaSi, velosipeds xelaxla qmnian, anu d. uznaZis naSromis mniSvneloba jer kidev
saTanadod ar aris Sefasebuli; kognitiuri paradigmis bazisuri debulebebi, rom-
lebsac ganwyobis Teoria gvTavazobs kognitologiis istoriaSi, samwuxarod, ar ga-
nixileba.
gamoyenebuli literatura
uznaZe d. Sromebi, t.VI, Tbilisi, ,,mecniereba’’

Anderson, St.R. Rev. on Johmson-Laird Ph.N. The Computer and the Mind. An introduction to cognitive sci-
ence, Cambridge, 1988/ Language – vol.65, # 4
Bartlett F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge, CUP, 1932.
Charniak E. ‘Organization and inference in a frame-like system of common-sense knowledge’, in (eds.) R.C.
Schank and B.I.Nash-Webber,1977.
Fillmore Ch. I. Frame Semantics//Linguistics in the Morning Calm; Selected papers from SICOL, Seoul, 1982.
Goffman, E., Frame Analysis, New York, Harper and Row,1974..
Hayes,P.J.., The Logic of Frames, in(ed,)D.Metzig, 1979.
Ketchuashvili, G., Dimitri Uznadze, in: Prospects, UNESCO International Bureau of Education, vol. 24, no ¾,
Paris.
Minski,M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge, in: (ed,)Winston, P .H., Psychology of Computer Vi-
sion, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Sanford, A. J., Garrod, S. C., Understanding Written Language, Chichester, 1981,
Schank R.C. Abelson R.P., Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge struc-
ture, Hillsdale (N.J.), 1977.
Tannen,D, What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations, in(ed.)R.O.Freedle, 1979.
Кубрякова Е.С., Демьянков В.З., Панкрац Ю.Г., Лузина Л. Г., Краткий словарь когнитивных терминов,
Москва, 1996.
NINO DARASELIA
DIMITRI UZNADZE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY OF SET FROM THE STANDPOINT OF COGNI-

TIVE SCIENCE
Summary
The paper is an attempt to reveal the importance of Dimitri Uznadze’s (1886 – 1950) set theory (which is
commonly viewed as a general theory of behavior) for the history of cognitive science.
As is known, D. Uznadze’s set theory (first developed in the 20s and 30s of the 20th c.) implies the unity of
such fundamental categories as personality, behavior, consciousness and the unconscious. In his philosophical, edu-
cational and psychological works D.Uznadze stresses the dialectical unity between physical and psychological proc-
esses; he maintains that psychology can perform its explanatory mission properly only if the research is based on the
idea that our consciousness is determined by social and historical factors; hence according to his definition the basic
feature of mind is the reflection of reality and at the same time the capacity to produce suitable behavior on the basis
of that reality. In his theory the relationship between psychological and physical processes is regulated by the prin-
ciple of immediacy – physical processes being the direct cause of psychological ones; for instance, the set, (a con-
scious state of an individual’s readiness to perform a particular action) on the one hand, precedes an activity and, on
the other, is the result of interaction of situational, motivational and operational factors. The notion of set implies
both subjective (an individual’s need to perform a specific action) and objective (an actual situation in which the
89
nino daraselia
need in question is realized) factors. Consequently, man’s actions are rooted in his/her personality and his/her be-
havior is regulated by psychological processes.
The notion of set is closely tied with the two types of man’s behavior singled out by D.Uznadze – impulsive
and mediated or objectified.
The term impulsive behavior denotes reutilized , ritualized actions i.e. actions characteristic of stereotypical
situations; impulsive behavior is a chain of interdependent acts, each signaling and stimulating the appearance of the
next one, each creating in a person a state of readiness to perform a particular action. The specificity of impulsive
behavior lies in its immediacy and sameness.
By contrast, the process of objectification can be associated with the creative aspect of man’s behavior; this is a
process during which the smoothness of impulsive behavior is interrupted by some kind of obstacle (the latter can
occur accidentally or be created purposefully to achieve a certain goal, e.g.: an aesthetic effect) and an object is sin-
gled out and perceived afresh, anew.
Objectification implies the existence of impulsive behavior but not the other way round.
In his set theory D.Uznadze places special emphasis on the role of language; he considers it to be ‘the only in-
ner form of our personal disposition.’.’The feeling of ‘identification or sameness’can hardly be achieved without
words, since they imply the close link between meanings fixed in our memory and their corresponding structures;
hence a word can serve as a stimulus and cause the emergence of a certain type of impulsive behavior or its creative
use( i.e. objectification ) can ascribe to it unusual, unexpected associations.
I argue that the above-discussed postulates of D.Uznadze’s set theory have correspondences in different cogni-
tive theories (developed in the 60s and 70s of the 20th c.) united under the general heading ‘frame semantics’ and
this makes me conclude that the set theory developed by D.Uznadze can be regarded as the first sample of frame
theory. Therefore, the theory in question should be regarded as an essential stage in the evolution of cognitive para-
digm.
90
nino qimeriZe

(germanuli da qarTuli teqstis saxeobaTa analizis safuZvelze)
teqstis lingvistikis farglebSi ukanasknel xanebSi calke qvemimarTulebad

yalibdeba teqstis saxeobaTa lingvistika. teqstis saxeobebi teqstis lingvistikis
centraluri kategoriaa. teqstis saxeobaTa aseTi mniSvneloba da maTi monacemebis
kvlevebSi aqtiurad CarTva gamoiwvia im faqtma, rom isini, rogorc prototipuli da
kulturis specifikiT ganpirobebuli nimuSebi, ar gvxvdeba mxolod romelime erT
konkretul enobriv sivrceSi. zogadad teqstebi individualuri enobrivi movlenebia,
erTgvari „parole sosiuriseuli gagebiT“ (ADAMZIK 2008:146), Tumca am individualur
enobriv erTeulebsac aqvs met-naklebad msgavsi da ganmasxvavebeli niSnebi, ris
mixedviTac xdeba maTi dajgufeba teqstis sxvadasxva saxeobaSi. teqstis saxeobebis
Seswavla teqstSi konkretuli kulturis tipobrivi maxasiaTeblebis gamovlenis
saSualebas iZleva. am TvalsazrisiT teqstis saxeobebi erTdroulad SeiZleba
ganxilul iqnes, rogorc kulturis erTgvari artefaqtebi da instrumentebi. ula fiqsi
Tvlis, rom teqstis saxeoba arsebobs mxolod metadoneze, roca ganixilaven teqsts.
mkvlevari aseve miiCnevs, rom sinamdvileSi arsebobs mxolod specifikuri erTi an
ramdenime kulturis farglebSi Seqmnili teqstis saxeobebi (FIX 2008:119). amrigad,
teqstis saxeoba iqmneba erTi romelime kulturis sazRvrebSi, Tavis mxriv, qmnis kul-
turas da, amavdroulad, inarCunebs mas. florian kulmasi (COULMAS 1979:24) kulturas
„cxovrebis organizebis formas“ uwodebs da erTgvar sakomunikacio kompetenciis
msgavs fenomenad warmogvidgens. enobriv-sakomunikacio kompetenciis mqone arasiste-
matur elementebad ganixilavs kirsten adamCiki teqstis saxeobebs (ADAMŽIK 1995: 28),
romlebSic yoveldRiuri yofa-cxovreba da rutina aisaxeba, Sesabamisad – kulturac.
gamomdinare iqidan, rom teqstis saxeobebi calkeuli enis specifikas asaxaven,
sxvadasxva enaze warmoqmnil erT konkretul teqstis saxeobaSic ki SesaZlebelia
warmoCndes sxvaoba gansxvavebuli kulturis fonze. Tumca isic dasaSvebia, rom
SesaZloa teqstis saxeobam ganicados modifikacia garkveuli niSniT an kulturaTa
sxvaobam gamoiwvios teqstis saxeobis ararseboba teqstis saxeobaTa registrSi.
gasuli saukunis dasasruls araerTi mkvlevari msjelobda teqstis lingvistikis,
rogorc interdisciplinuri samecniero disciplinis, Sesaxeb. robert alan de
bograndi mas ganixilavs rogorc mecnierebas teqstis Sesaxeb, romelic sami
gansxvavebuli perspeqtiviT vlindeba kvlevis procesSi: lingvisturiT, kognituriTa
da socialuriT (BEAUGRANDE 1997:9). ula fiqsi socialur perspeqtivaSi uwinaresad
teqstSi moqmed kulturalurobis kriteriums gulisxmobs (FIX 2008:103). calkeul
teqstis saxeobaSi es faqtori garkveul kvals tovebs da, Sesabamisad, ukanasknel
periodSi teqstis lingvistikaSi aris msjeloba, rom teqstualobis Svid kriteriums
aucileblad unda daerTos kulturalurobis merve kriteriumi (iqve, 134), rasac kidev
ufro amyarebs hermansis mier ganmartebuli kulturis cneba, sadac calsaxad
figurirebs teqstis saxeoba, romlis meSveobiTac avtori ayalibebs kulturis
ganmartebas da dasZens, rom: „kulturebi erTurTisagan gansxvavdebian rogorc mis
sivrceSi arsebuli teqstis saxeobebiT, aseve ama Tu im kulturisaTvis misaRebi
gamoxatvis formebiT“ (HERMANNS 2003:369).
91
nino qimeriZe
yoveldRiuroba, sadac adamians uwevs qmedeba, ar aris daxuruli, is mudmivad

ganicdis cvlilebas. imisaTvis, rom adamianebma moaxerxon Tanacxovreba, TanaRvaweba,
isini cdiloben gaxdnen sazogadoebis, kulturis nawili. am procesebSi teqstis
saxeobas, romliTac adamianebi operireben, qmedebis saSualebis umniSvnelovanesi
statusi eniWeba. jer kidev gasuli saukunis ormocdaaTian wlebSi harisi xazgasmiT
aRniSnavda, rom enis manifestacia xdeba ara calkeul sityvebsa da winadadebebSi,
aramed bmul teqstebSi (HARRIS 1952). Sesabamisad, teqstis saxeoba aris enobrivi qme-
debis is saSualeba, romelic garkveul konteqstSi ivseba kulturiT, garda amisa
niSandebulia am ukanaskneliT da Semdeg misi manifestireba xdeba garkveul sakomuni-
kacio sivrceSi.
SepirispirebiTi kvlevebi enis sxvadasxva doneze xSiria. msgavsi elementebis
Sedareba xdeba rogorc morfologiis, ise sintaqsis doneze. arcTu iSviaTad mimarTaven
teqstis doneze SedarebiT analizs. Cven gvqonda saSualeba msgavsi samuSao mogvesinja
literaturuli teqstis SemTxvevaSi, roca erTmaneTs SevadareT qarTuli da germanuli
„anbanTqebis“ teqstebi. unda aRiniSnos ula fiqsis mosazreba literaturuli da
araliteraturuli teqstebis Taobaze, romelic aRniSnavda, rom am teqstebis ganxilva
SeuZlebelia, rogorc Zireulad gansxvavebuli erTeulebisa, vinaidan isini warmo-
adgenen erTsa da imave kulturaTa artefaqtebs, Sesabamisad, maT aqvT msgavsi statusi.
Tumca es ar niSnavs imas, rom isini ar arian garkveuli specifikis mqoneni. teqstis
saxeobebi, rogorc aseTi, gvxvdeba mxolod metadoneze, roca vmsjelobT teqstebze.
sinamdvileSi, metyvelebis procesSi mudmivad gvxvdeba mxolod specifikuri, erTi an
ramdenime kulturiT markirebuli teqstis saxeoba (FIX 2008:112).
amjerad, saanalizo korpusi moicavs ara mxolod qarTul da germanul aralite-
raturul teqstebs, aramed SevecadeT msgavsi analizi Cagvetarebina germanuli enis
saerTo standartis farglebSi. erTi mxriv, analizis obieqti gaxda germanuli enis Sida
standartze Seqmnili, xolo, meore mxriv, avstriul standartebze Sesrulebuli
msgavsi teqstis saxeoba. faqtobrivad, es teqstebi orive germanul enazea, Tumc maT
Soris standartuli gansxvaveba enobrivi ierarqiis garkveul doneebze calkeul
gansxvavebebs iZleva. sakvlevi korpusis analizis safuZvelze aseve mniSvnelovani iyo
teqstis saxeobis SigniT arsebul sxvaobaTa da msgavsebaTa dadgena, rac, Cveni azriT,
ganpirobebuli unda yofiliyo kulturaTa TviTmyofadobiT.
teqstis saxeobaTa Sedarebisas dgeba sakvlevi masalis kompleqsuri multifunqcio-
naluri analizis sakiTxi. Tertium comparationis-is Tavis mxriv gulisxmobs garkveuli
teqsturi kategoriebis SerCevas da sakvlev korpusze misadagebas. garkveuli mosazre-
biT SeirCa, rogorc zemoT ukve aRvniSneT, germanuli, avstriuli da qarTuli istori-
uli dokumentebi da sigelebi. kerZod, 1875 wlis 27 maiss berlinSi prusiis mefe
vilhelmis mier xelmowerili da graf georg mengdenis saxelze gacemuli sigeli, amave
gvaris warmomadgenlis, ernst rainhold fon mengdenisadmi 1774 wlis 22 ivniss avstriis
imperator iozef II-s sigeli da qarTuli wyalobisa (gacemuli erekle meoris mier) da
sagvareulo (mefe giorgi IX-is mier 1458 wlis agvistos xelmowerili gamyreliZeebis
sagvareulo sigeli) sigelebi.
sanam uSualod sakvlevi korpusis Sedarebas SevudgebodeT, mcire ganmarteba unda
gakeTdes germanul da avstriul enobriv nairsaxeobaTa (Sprachvarietäten) standartiza-
ciis Sesaxeb. saerTo enis farglebSi standartizaciis sakiTxi gasuli saukunis samoc-
daaTian wlebs da, kerZod ki, avstraliel germanist mixeil klins ukavSirdeba, romlis
Teoria mogvianebiT agreTve gaziarebul iqna am sakiTxze momuSave dargis specialistTa
mier (maT Sorisaa ulrix amoni 1995, peter vizingeri 1988). Tumca pirveli mcdeloba jer
kidev meore msoflio omis periodSi iyo, gamocemuliyo avstricizmebis leqsikoni,
sadac, rac ar unda paradoqsi iyos, avstricizmebi ar iyo aqtiurad warmodgenili.
92
avstriis ànSlusma~ didxans SeaCera avstriaSi germanuli enis standartizaciis

sakiTxi. avstrielTa e.w. arasrulfasovnebis kompleqss sakuTari standartuli enis
mimarT istoriulad garkveuli safuZveli hqonda. 1774 wels avstriis imperatori maria
terezia Sleziel avgustinel abat felbigers avalebs sayovelTao saskolo reformis
gatarebas, rac gulisxmobda germanuli enis intensiuri kursis damkvidrebas skolebSi.
aRniSnuli RonisZieba miznad isaxavda òrTografiulad marTebul weras da, Sesaba-
misad, werilobiT gaformebas (orthographisch richtig zu schreiben und sich angemessen schriftlich
auszudrücken)~ (WIESINGER 1988: 15). saboloo jamSi amiT avstriuli germanulis daax-
loeba xdeba germanuli enis Sida standartTan, anu iwyeba avstriaSi saxelmwifo enis
„avstricizmebisagan dawmendis periodi“ da misi daaxloeba Sidagermanul standartTan.
es nabiji avstriisaTvis politikurad momgebiani iyo, is xdeboda saerTo germanuli
sivrcis wevri. es procesebi ar iyo mxolod saimperatoro karis ubralo „axireba“.
avstrias hyavda politikurad sakmaod dawinaurebuli mezobeli prusiis imperia, ro-
melTanac is xSirad iZulebuli iyo Sesuliyo samxedro-politikur aliansSi. amdenad,
enobrivi politika saerTo saxelmwifoebrivi politikis kurss emTxveva.
Tu gadavamowmebT winamdebare avstriuli sigelis TariRs, SeumCneveli ar darCeba,
rom teqsti Sedgenilia e.w. saskolo reformamde. Sesabamisad, masSi unda fiqsirdebodes
enobriv doneze gadaxra saerTo Sidastandartuli germanulidan. aqve unda aRiniSnos
isic, rom, garda standartuli gansxvavebisa, Tavis mxriv teqstis saxeobebi, romelTac
qveviT ganvixilavT, TavisTavad ganekuTvnebian nebismier SidastandartSi moqmed enob-
riv variantebs, kerZod ki, dargobrivi teqstis saxeobebs, rasac xazgasmiT adasturebs
helmut henes mier aRwerili enis standartuli modeli, romelSic avtori standartul
germanul enas, rogorc enis moqmed formas, araerTi enobrivi variantis wyarod miiCnevs.
is germaneli eris kulturis, politikuri istoriisa da yofis matarebelia (HENNE
1986:218). igi mkacrad struqturirebulia da masSi aisaxeba am enis matarebeli sazoga-
doebis aRqma da gamocdileba, azrovnebis yaida da codna, emociebi. istoriul-kultu-
ruli TvalsazrisiT enobriv standarts sakmaod mniSvnelovani amocana aqvs, miuxedavad
imisa, rom enis matarebelTa absoluturi umravlesoba ar saubrobs standartiT
miRebuli yvela normis dacviT. Sesabamisad, iqmneba standartis SigniT moqmedi enis
variantebi. xolo, rac Seexeba erTi enis farglebSi moqmed Sida da gareenobriv
standartebs, rac germanuli enis SemTxvevaSi udaod fiqsirdeba, isini kidev ufro
afarToeben variantebis speqtrs. savaraudoa, rom, miuxedavad erTi saerTo enobrivi
standartisa, dargobrivi teqstis saxeobis variacia SesaZloa Sida da gareenobrivi
standartis farglebSi garkveuli saxecvlilebiT dafiqsirdes, rac mniSvnelovan-
wilad gareenobrivi standartis farglebSi arsebuli kulturis gansxvavebulobiT
unda aixsnas.
enobrivi standarti da dargobrivi teqstis saxeoba. saanalizod warmodgenili
korpusi miekuTvneba araliteraturuli teqstis saxeobebs, kerZod, isini samarTleb-
rivi teqstebia. teqstis es saxeoba dargobrivi teqstebis jgufs miekuTvneba. isini komp-
leqsuri enobrivi erTeulebia: „erTi mxriv am SemTxvevaSi win wamoiwevs socialuri, Te-
maturi da situaciuri faqtorebi, xolo – meore mxriv, teqstis struqturuli, stilis-
turi da formaluri niSnebi“ (BAUMANN 1992: 9).
samarTlebrivi dargobrivi teqstebi germaniis teritoriaze jer kidev adreul
SuasaukuneebSi gvxvdeba, Tumca pirveli samarTlebrivi dargobrivi teqstebis werilo-
biTi ena laTinuria. rac Seexeba germanulenovan samarTlebriv teqstebs, isini mecamete
saukuneSi fiqsirdeba. maT Soris aris araerTi sakancelario-samarTlebrivi aqti Tu
sxvadasxva Tematikis mqone sigeli. am sferoSi reformebi ki uSualod ukavSirdeba 1794
wels prusiaSi gamocemul zogadsamarTlebriv normebs (Preuβisches Allgemeines Landrecht),
93
nino qimeriZe
ramac imTaviTve im iuristTa ukmayofileba gamoiwvia, romlebic dargobrivi komunika-

ciisas tradiciulad laTinurs iyenebdnen. amrigad, winamdebare saanalizo teqstebi
garkveul institucionalur sivrceSi Seqmnili dargobrivi teqstebia, romelTac hyavs
konkretuli adresantebi – prusiis mefe vilhelmi da avstriis imperatori iozef meore.
qarTul sigels xels awers mefe giorgi mecxre da erekle meore. samive SemTxvevaSi
teqstis avtori saxelmwifos pirveli piria. teqstSive vxvdebiT konkretul adresats,
xolo Tu saqme exeba sasisxlo anu sagvareulo sigels, maSin adresati ramdenime Taobas
iTvlis. saxeliT moixsenieba konkretuli piri, vizec uSualod gaica sigeli, xolo
zogadad saxeldeba misi STamomavali. konkretulad:
prusiuli sigeli wyalobis sigelia da aq moixsenieba mxolod konkretuli piri,
grafi georg mengdeni ‘dem Kaiserlich Russischen Obersten und Flügel=Adjutanten Seiner Majestät des
Kaisers, Grafen Georg Mengden’, gankargulebis avtoria imperatori vilhelmi ‘Wir Wilhelm,
von Gottes Gnaden König von Preuβen etc’; analogiur qarTul wyalobis sigelSi wyalobis
gamcemi, am SemTxvevaSi ki mefe moixsenieba TanamecxedresTan da taxtis memkvidreebTan
erTad saxelobiTad „mefeman.... meoreman iraklim da Tanamecxedrem Cvenman, batonis
dadianis asulman, dedofalman darejanma, pirmSoman.... “; aseve mxolod wyalobis mimRebi
da moaje saxeldeba personalurad „saamis Svils zaals“.
avstriuli teqsti sagvareulo sisxlis sigelia: adresanti imperatori iozef meore
– “Der Joseph der Andere von Gottes Gnaden.... Bekennen für uns und Unsere Nachkommen’, xolo
adresati ‘der Ernst Reinhold Freyherr von Mengden Landrath [.....] daβ ernannte Ernst Reinhold
Freyherr von Mengden, dessen eheliche Leibeserben und Nachkommen absteigenden Stammes, Mann= und
Frauens= Personen, für und für, Unsere und des Heiligen Römischen Reichs Grafen und Gräfinnen, Herren
und Frauen seyn, sich also nennen und schreiben, von Uns und Unseren Nachkommen am Heiligen
Römischen Reich”, qarTuli teqstis mixedviT avtori – `Cven RvTiv gvirgvinosnisa mefeT-
mefe giorgisagan... da mogvaxsenes Cven da Tanamecxedresa Cvensa patronsa dedufalT-
dedufalsa nestan-darejansa da Zesa Cvensa aleqsandres~, xolo obieqti: `movides
winaSe Cvensa... didad momWirneni gamyreliZesa Salva da Svili indua da mamisa, gvea-
jes...~. orive sasisxlo sigelSi pirebi, romlebzec gaicema sigeli, arian uSualo adre-
satebi, Tumca amave teqstebSi vxvdebiT arapirdapir adresatebsac, romelTac aseve
mimarTavs avtori. eseni arian instituciuri moxeleebi, maT unda xelmoweriT daadastu-
ron zemoxsenebuli samarTlebrivi aqti. xelmoweris Semdeg ZalaSi Sedis zemoxsene-
buli sigeli. am pirTa Soris saxeldebian rogorc eriskacni, ise sasuliero pirebi:
avstriuli sigeli: “Bebiethen und befehlen demnach hiemit den Erzbischöffen

zu Maynz, Trier und Köln, als Unseren und des Heiligen Römischen Reichs
Kurfürsten und Erzkanzlern, durch Germanien, Gallien, das Königreich Arelat und
Italien, auch allen anderen Unseren Kanzlern, Kanzley Verwaltern, und Secretatien
gegnwärtigen und künftigen“
qarTuli sigeli: àfxazeTis kaTalikozo, quTaisis quTaTelo da
winamZRvaro, moZRvaro, odiSis Wyondidelo, bedielo, moqvelo,
cagarelo, qarTlis kaTalikozo, samcxis [...] Tqvenc daumtkicebT~
Tumca qarTul versiaSi saxeldeba ara zogadad moxeleebi, eriskacni da sasuliero

Tanamdebobis pirebi, rac naklebi sizustiTaa mocemuli avstriul sigelSi, aramed am
SemTxvevaSi konkretdeba TiToeuli saÃelo da eparqia, saTavado da saxelmwifoebrivi
ierarqia. kidev erTi mniSvnelovani detali, – qarTul teqstis mixedviT savaziro umtki-
cebs saxelmwifos pirvel pirs warmodgenil proeqts, anu saboloo instancia sigelma
unda gaiaros savaziroSi, romelic erTgvarad Tanamedrove ministrTa kabinetis wina-
paria. xolo avstriul sigelSi samarTlebrivi dokumenti unda aRiaros saRvTo romis
94
imperiis yvela qveSevrdomma. xolo prusiuli analogiuri teqstis dasasruls xel-

moweriT imperatori adasturebs samarTlebrivi wyaros namdvilobas da ar iTxovs am
dokumentis arc damtkicebas da arc vinmesgan aRiarebas. aRsaniSnavia is faqti, rom, rac
ufro gviandelia qarTuli sigelebi, miT ufro zogadad saxeldeba iribi adresati, isic
mxolod moxeleebi. Sesabamisad, erekle meoris mier gacemul wyalobis sigelSi
moxseniebulia „karisa Cvenisa veqil-vezirno da mdivano“.
wyalobis sigelebisagan principulad gansxvavdeba sasisxlo sigelebi, sadac eris-
kacTa gverdiT sasuliero pirebic moixsenieba. sasisxlo sigeli erTgvar samarTlebriv
dokuments warmoadgens SuasaukuneebSi, sadac informacia gveZleva konkreuli gvaris
Sesaxeb. rac ufro Zvelia am tipis qarTuli sigelebi, miT ufro detalurad da Tan
aucilebeli ierarqiis dacviT xdeba sasuliero pirTa moxsenieba eriskacTa gverdiT.
gviandel periodSi msgavsi samarTlebrivi Zeglebi mcirdeba, vinaidan feodaluri
urTierTobebi ukve Camoyalibebulia, rac Seexeba evropul sasisxlo sigelebs, masSi
teqstis Sedgenisas personifikacia ar xdeba, magram zogadad mainc moixsenieba rogorc
mniSvnelovani eriskacni, ise sasuliero pirebi.
funqciuri TvalsazrisiT, rogorc mosalodneli iyo am tqstebis ilokuciuri
struqtura ase gamoiyureba: teqstSi moqedebs ramdenime funqcia, kerZod: informaciuli,
argumentaciuli, deklaraciuli da nawilobriv eqsplikaciuri da apelaciuri.
Sesabamisad, funqciaTa gadanawileba zemoxsenebul teqstebSi aseT saxes iRebs:
wyalobis sigelebi: prusiuli: deklaraciuli funqcia, romelic gamoixateba pre-
dikatiT “Wir haben [...] verliehen,[...]”. Tumca teqstSi impliciturad Cadebulia da interpre-
taciis safuZvelze ikiTxeba aseve argumentaciuli funqcia. ordenis gacemis safuZveli
gaxda graf mengdenis sazogadoebrivi moRvaweoba da samxedro damsaxureba prusiis
imperiis winaSe, rac verbalurad mxolod aRniSnuli piris titulaturisa da Tanamde-
bobebis dasaxelebiT Semoifargleba, anu gvaqvs saxeladi formebi da Sesabamisi predi-
kati mxolod igulisxmeba: “dem Kaiserlich Russischen Obersten und Flügel=Adjutanten Seiner
Majestät des Kaisers, Grafen Georg Mengden, Kommandeur des Husaren=Regiments „Baltijissk“ N12”.
qarTuli wyalobis sigeli: teqstSi dominanturia deklaraciul-argumentaciuli
funqcia, gamoxatuli predikatebiT „SegiwyaleT da giboZeT Sen/“. argumentaciuli
funqcia gadmoicema saxeladi jgufiT, romelic atarebs emociur elfers, rac zogadad
qarTuli samarTlebrivi Zeglebis kulturul-specifikuri maxasiaTebelia: „Cvens di-
dad erTguls da wesisamebr mravalrigad TavdadebiT namsaxurs ymasa....“ . prusiul teq-
stSi araTu emociuri datvirTviT Seferili argumenti ar aris, aramed argumentic imp-
liciturad ikiTxeba. TiTqos prusiis saimperatoro kari arc ki Tvlis savaldebulod
daasaxelos miRebuli gadawyvetilebis safuZveli.
teqstSi damatebiT funqciad unda davasaxelod apelaciuri funqcia, gadmocemuli
Semdegi predikatebiT: „awe gibrZanebT karisa Cvenisa veqil-vazirno da mdivano, Tqvenc
ase daumtkiceT wyaloba ese Cvengan qmnili da nuravin Slad Ãelhyof.....“. msgavsi epizodi
ar aris prusiul sigelSi. qarTul teqstSi garkveul epizodSi aseve damatebiT
funqciad SesaZloa dasaxeldes informaciuli funqcia, riTac obieqtis dinamikuroba
gamoixateba: „mogvideg karsa darbazisa Cvenisasa da mamis Senis saÃelos, yoriasaul-
baSis, wyalobas dagveaje“.
sasisxlo sigelebi: sasisxlo sigelebi imTaviTve Tematurad gansxvavdeba wyalo-
bis sigelebisagan. magram funqciuri TvalsazrisiT ZiriTadi funqciebi am teqstis
saxeobebSi msgavsia.
avstriuli sigeli: avstriul teqstSi wamyvani funqciaa deklaraciuli funqcia,
gadmocemuli Semdegi predikatebiT: “Bekennen für uns und Unsere Nachkommen/verliehen
werden“, romelsac damatebiT teqstis bolos daerTvis Semavsebeli funqciebis saxiT ape-
95
nino qimeriZe
laciuri – “Bebiethen und befehlen.../erkennen, sie also dafür achten, würdign, ehren, nennen”, agreTve
argumentaciuli, eqsplikaciuri da, garkveul epizodebSi, eqspresiuli funqciac ki,
iseve rogorc qarTul teqstSi. sakmaod vrclad aris warmodgenili teqstis argumenta-
ciuli nawili, sadac, gansxvavebiT qarTuli teqstisa, gvaris dawinaurebas safuZvlad
udevs 4 Taobis damsaxureba qveynis winaSe. didi adgili eTmoba eqsplikaciur funqcias
teqstis im monakveTSi, sadac detaluradaa aRwerili sigelze TandarTuli sagrafo
gerbis calkeuli elementi. rac Seexeba eqspresiul funqcias, misi gamoxatva xerxdeba
calkeuli leqsikuri erTeulebis meSveobiT “vortrefliche Thaten und Geschichtlichkeit, (III)
edles Gemüth, vorzügliche Eigenschaften, wie auch getreue”, rodesac teqstSi gadmocemulia
keTilSobili da qveynisTvis Rvawlmosili gvaris damsaxureba.
qarTul sigelSi mkacrad gamokveTili deklaraciuli funqciaa, argumentaciulis
paralelurad. damatebiT funqciebSi aseve fiqsirdeba apelaciuri funqcia da naklebad
gamoxatuli eqsplikaciuri da eqspresiuli funqciebi. meTxuTmete saukunis qarTul
sasisxlo sigelSi mefe iseve moiTxovs savazirosgan Tavisi brZanebis damtkicebas,
rogorc mogvianebiT erekle meoris mier xelmoweril wyalobis sigelSi, Tumca
sasuliero pirebi am sasisxlo sigelSi ierarqiis mixedviT TiTqmis srulad arian
warmodgenili, rac jer kidev adasturebs saxelmwifosa da eklesiis erTobas.
teqstis kompozicia. globaluri makrostruqtura teqstSi yalibdeba erTi mxriv
formalurad – enobriv da semiotikur niSanTa koheziisa da funqcionalurad – koheren-
tulobis miRweviT. es zogadi debuleba vrceldeba dargobriv teqstebze. Tumca makro-
struqturis Camoyalibebis sruliad erTiani principi ar dafiqsirda Cveni sakvlevi teq-
stebis analizis Sedegebis mixedviT.
prusiuli sigeli Sedgeba Semdegi struqturuli elementebisagan:
– adresanti/avtori
– adresati
– centraluri teqsti
– TariRi
– xelmowera
qarTuli wyalobis sigeli kidev ufro informatulia, rac struqturuli elemen-
tebis simravleSic aisaxa:
– moxseniebulia qriste
– adresanti da gvirgvinosanis saxli
– adresati
gadawyvetileba
argumentacia
komunikantTa Semdgomi urTierTobebis pirobebi
– mimarTva savezirosadmi
– mdivanmwignobris dasturi xelmoweriT
– TariRi
sasisxlo sigelebi makrostruqturuli formatiT gansxvavdeba wyalobis sigelebis
Sesabamisi monacemebisagan. qarTul da avstriul sigelTa makrostruqturebs Soris
mkveTri gansxvaveba ar dadasturda:
avstriuli sigeli:
– adresanti da gvirgvinosnis saxli
– adresati
96
argumentacia
gadawyvetileba
heraldika
– mimarTva qvemdgomi instanciebisadmi
– mimarTva qveSevrdomTa mimarT
– adresantis xelmowera
– TariRi
qarTuli sigeli:
– TariRi
– moxseniebulia qriste
– adresanti da gvirgvinosnis saxli
– adresati
argumentacia
gadawyvetileba
– mdivan-mwignobris xelmowera
– mimarTva savaziros da qveSevrdomTa mimarT
– adresantis xelmowera
Tumca aqve unda aRiniSnos evropuli samarTlebrivi dokumentis kidev erTi Tavise-
bureba, kerZod, verbalur teqsts erTvis sagvareulo gerbi, romlis detaluri
aRweriloba da calkeuli fragmentis ganmarteba teqstSia CarTuli. rogorc vxedavT,
Sedarebuli teqstebis korpusis monacemebis mixedviT gansakuTrebuli sxvaoba makro-
struqturis farglebSi ar yofila. yvela arsebiTi Semadgeneli segmenti saxezea; mci-
redi sxvaoba, rac teqstebma aCvenes, es iyo evropul sigelebSi damatebiT heraldikuri
monacemebis gaCena. qarTul teqstebSi ar dasturdeba teqstis Sedgenis adgili, ZiriTad
korpuss daerTvis damatebiT institucia savaziros saxiT. rac Seexeba konkretulad
prusiul sigels, misi makrostruqtura ukiduresad gamartivebulia. yvela es gansxva-
veba ganpirobebulia zemoxsenebuli teqstebis producirebiT gansxvavebul kulturul
sivrceSi.
teqstis lingvisturi TaviseburebisaTvis. Cven winaSea erTsa da imave enaze Sesru-
lebuli ori teqsti. aqve mniSvnelovania davsZinoT, rom erTi maTgani Sesrulebulia
germanuli enis Sida standartze, xolo meore aris germanuli enis avstriuli stan-
darti. Tu TariRebis mixedviT vimsjelebT, avstriulSi jer kidev aris mcdeloba, rom
adgilobrivi germanulis daaxloeba moxdes Sidagermanul standartTan. maSasadame,
enobrivi TvalsazrisiT teqstebSi raime gansakuTrebuli sxvaoba ar unda dafiqsirdes.
prusiuli sigeli. teqsti Sedgeba erTi rTuli winadadebisagan, dawerilia mrav-
lobiTi ricxvis pirvel pirSi, rac gulisxmobs prusia da mefe vilhelmi. mefis saxels
Tan axlavs dasavleTSi absolutizmis periodSi damkvidrebuli mimarTvis forma “Gottes
Gnaden”, xolo, rogorc ki fokusSi eqceva uSualod mefe, mimarTvis formaSi `misi umaR-
lesoba~ icvleba kuTvnilebiTi nacvalsaxeliT da gvaqvs mesame piris forma, Cawerili
maiuskuliT. rTuli winadadebis pirvel nawilSi, romelic droSi uswrebs momdevnos,
Semasmeneli warmodgenilia perfeqtis formiT, sadac saubaria graf mengdenis meore
xarisxis ordeniT dajildoebaze, xolo momdevno winadadebaSi Semasmeneli prezensis
97
nino qimeriZe
formiTaa da masSi dasturdeba amave pirisTvis rwmunebis sigelis gadacema. teqstSi

gvaqvs gameoreba proformebiT. teqsti minimaluri zomisaa, Sesrulebuli sakancelario
normebis maqsimaluri dacviT.
avstriuli sigeli. teqstis kompozicia zedmiwevniT asaxavs am iuridiuli dokumen-
tis Sinaars. gansxvavebiT prusiuli sigelisagan, avstriuli teqsti ramdenime segmenti-
sagan Sedgeba. rogorc mosalodneli iyo, pirvel segmentSi saxeldeba avstriis impera-
tori iozef meore Tavisi titulaturiT, masTan erTad moxseniebulia agreTve regenti
da taxtis memkvidre. qarTuli teqstebisagan gansxvavebiT, teqstSi araferia naTqvami im-
peratoris Tanamecxedreze. imperatori moixsenieba Semdegi formiT: “Der Ioseph der
Andere”, rigobiT saxels aq anacvlebs parafrazirebuli aRwerilobiTi versia. mTeli
teqsti Cawerila agreTve mravlobiTi ricxvis pirvel pirSi. piri, romelsac ekuTvnis
sigeli, teqstSi pirvelad proformebiT Semodis da proformebi kataforuli mimarTebe-
biT ukavSirdeba teqstis Semdeg segmentSi sakuTar saxeliT moxseniebul sigelis
mflobels. proformaTa gameorebis sqema ase gamoiyureba:
den wohlverdienten => denselben Namen => der Ernst Reinhold Freyherr von Mengden
Landrath des Herzogthums Liefland => welche =>dessen =>Ernst Reinhold =>ihm=> welch
=>er=> ihm Ernst Reinhold Freyherrn von Mengden =>ihn=> ihnen=> Ernst Reinhold
Freyherr von Mengden =>obgedachten Ernst Reinhold des Heiligen Römischen Reichs
Grafen von Mengden etc.
is, rom grafi mengdeni imTaviTve saxelobiTad ar aris moxseniebuli dokumentSi,
aseve gamiznulad aris gakeTebuli. pirvelad saxeliT teqstSi monarqi moixsenieba, ro-
gorc ierarqiis zeda safexurze mdgomi. mxolod amis Semdeg proformebis izotopiur
jaWvSi erT-erT rgolad jdeba grafi mengdenis saxeli.
teqstSi CarTulia damoukidebel erTeulad gerbis aRwera, romelic Cveulebriv
mxolobiTi ricxvis mesame pirSia gadmocemuli. faqtebis deklarireba xdeba moqmedebiT
gvarSi, rac naklebad tipuria dargobrivi da, kerZod, samarTlis dargis teqstebi-
saTvis. sintaqsuri formebi rTulia, xSiria rTuli winadadebebis jaWvi, infinitiuri
konstruqciebis CarTviT. rogorc ukve aRiniSna, XVIII-XIX ss-is mijnaze prusiaSi axde-
nen samarTlis dargidan laTinuris gamoZevebas, Tumca, avstriul sigelSi minimaluri
odenobiT mainc rCeba laTinuri terminebi, zogierTis gagermanulebac ki xdeba, mag., eine
Poen (nula poena sine lege – keine Strafe ohne Gesetz), rac niSnavs sasjels. aseve laTinuradaa
kancelariaSi mdivnis mier gakeTebuli xelmowera: “Ad Mandatum Sac: Cæs: Majestatis proprium
CollL=et RegustL=R = de (R.F.)”.
amrigad, orive germanulenovani teqstis Sedarebisas saanalizo masalam aCvena, rom
avstriuli sigelis teqsti faqtobrivad daclilia avstricizmebisagan, Tu ar CavTv-
liT ramdenime leqsikur erTeuls, romelic amovardnilia saliteraturo germanuli
enis konteqstidan: ‘hiemit, angebohrnen Groβmuth, vor andern, dahero obbesagter, fürohin, die zweien
aüssere, mit auswärts gewendten Köpfe, hinfüro, mehrgemeldtem, würdign, geruhiglich, gegebn’. teqsti
maqsimalurad daaxloebulia germanuli enis Sida standarts. Sesabamisad, iozef meo-
ris sasisxlo sigeli mengdenebis gvarisadmi saliteraturo enis normebis farglebSi
rCeba, anu germanuli sakancelario da samarTlis ena XVIII-XIX ss-Si vrceldeba orive
germanulenovan sivrceSi.
qarTuli sigelebis analizis Semdgom aRmoCnda garkveuli msgavseba analogiur
germanulenovan teqstebTan enobriv doneze: faqtebis gacxadeba aqac mravlobiTi
ricxvis pirvel pirSi xdeba; zogierT epizodSi kvlavac SemorCenilia arTronis zogi-
erTi forma – „brZaneba ese niSnad gviboZebia“. sigelis gamcemi uSualo mimarTvis
formasac iyenebs: „vinca TqvenTagani da Tqvenis sisxlisa da gvarisa ubralod mog-
klas [...]“, anu qarTul teqstSi monacvleobs TxrobiTi da brZanebiTi kilo. teqstis
98
safinalo epizodSi mefe mimarTavs sasuliero da saero pirT, savaziros: „afxazeTis

kaTalikozo, quTaisis quTaTelo da winamZRvaro, [...] xelisufalno, didno da mcire-
no Tqvenc daumtkiceT“. msgavsi formebi ar moiZebda germanulenovan teqstebSi, rac
gansxvavebuli politikuri kulturis Sedegia.
Cven mier ganxiluli teqstis saxeobebi fiqsirdeba rogorc qarTul, ise germa-
nul da avstriul sinamdvileSi. rogorc analizidan gamoCnda, maT saerTo paramet-
rebi aqvT garkveul aspeqtebSi, magram gansxvavebuli kultura mkveTr daRs asvams
am, erTi SexedviT, TiTqosda mkacr lingvistur standartebSi moqceul teqstis sa-
xeobas. teqstis saxeoba „sigeli“ araliteraturuli teqstebis klasifikaciaSia moq-
ceuli rogorc qarTul, ise germanulenovan sivrceSi. Sesabamisad, variaciuli gansx-
vaveba maT Soris minimumamde unda iyos dayvanili, Tumca unda aRiniSnos, rom wlebis
manZilze, miuxedavad saqmiani qaRaldebis warmoebis erTgvarovnebisa, germanul da avs-
triul kancelariaSi msgavsi teqstis saxeoba, germanuli enis Sida da gare standartze
kulturis specifikidan gamomdinare, sxvadasxvagvarad Camoyalibda. sxvaoba kargad
gamoikveTa teqstis funqciaTa gansazRvrisas: Tuki deklaraciuli funqcia dominantur
rols asrulebda orive teqstSi, avstriul sigelSi, paralelurad teqstSi, mniSvne-
lovani adgili daikava argumentaciulma funqciam, rac aseve niSandoblivi iyo qar-
Tuli sigelebisaTvis. ar SeiZleba ar aRiniSnos qarTuli da avstriuli sigelebis
emociuri Seferiloba, risganac sruliad daclilia prusiuli teqstis varianti, rac
martivad aixsneba am qveynebis istoriul-kulturuli fonis sxvadasxvaobiT. faqtob-
rivad, prusiis mefisaTvis grafi mengdeni aris mxolod daqiravebuli piri, romelic
saxelmwifos samsaxurSi mcire xniT imyofeboda da, bunebrivia, misi cnobadobis xarisxi
ar utoldeba misi winapris mimarTebas avstriis imperiisadmi. georg mengdenis wina
Taoba avstriis saxelmwifos qveSevrdomia, romelic Tavisi STamomavlobiTa da winapre-
biT mis samsaxurSi dgas, aqvs saxelmwifoebrivi statusi da, Sesabamisad, misi wyalobis
sigelSi detalurad aris aRwerili Sesabamisi atributebiT saxelmwifos damokide-
buleba Rirseuli qveSevrdomis mimarT. kidev ufro farToa emociuri speqtri qarTul
sigelebSi, rac aseve ganpirobebulia imiT, rom qarTul sinamdvileSi istoriulad
dasturdeba ara batonymuri, aramed patronymuri damokidebuleba qveSevrdomis mimarT.
amrigad, teqstSi kargad ikiTxeba sxvadasxva socialur fenaTa mimarTeba. evropuli
saimperatoro karisaTvis yvela danarCeni momdevno fena qveSevrdomia anu xazi esmeba
siuzerenul urTierTobebs. xolo qarTul samarTlebriv ZeglebSi gvian periodSic
mkafiod aris gamokveTili socialur fenaTa SedarebiT ufro tolerantuli urTierT-
mimarTebebi. rac Seexeba prusias, is, rogorc samxedro Zlierebis simbolo, erTpirovnu-
lad mefis saxeliT iRebs gadawyvetilebas, ara aqvs raime mWidro valdebuleba garkve-
uli droiT daqiravebuli subieqtebisadmi.
qarTuli samarTlis Zeglebis ZalaSi Sesvla xdeba savaziros gavliT, amas erTpi-
rovnulad ar wyvets mefe. warmodgenil dokuments esaWiroeba aRmasrulebeli organos
dasturi. avstriul sinamdvileSi imperatoris gadawyvetileba calsaxaa da is imperiis
farglebSi mcxovrebi nebismieri socialuri fenisa, Tu administraciuli da sasuli-
ero ierarqiis warmomadgenlisagan iTxovs pirveli saxelmwifo piris mier miRebuli ga-
dawyvetilebis aRiarebas da pativiscemas. xolo prusiis mefe, iRebs ra gadawyvetilebas,
es ukanaskneli xelmowerisTanave upirobod unda iqnes miRebuli imperiis qveSevrdomTa
mier, anu yvela imaT mier, viszec vrceldeba imperiis gavlena. gansxvaveba mmarTvelobis
sistemaSi garkveulwilad am qveynebis istoriuli ganviTarebiTac aris ganpirobebuli.
saqarTvelos da avstrias Tavisi saxelmwifoebrivi ganviTarebis ufro xangrZlivi is-
toria aqvT, vidre prusias. is, rogorc politikuri erTeuli, gvian Cndeba germaniis te-
ritoriaze da sakuTari miTiuri samxedro Zlierebis Sesustebis Semdeg kargavs Tavis
politikur gavlenas evropis qveynebze.
99
nino qimeriZe
TavisTavad teqstis saxeobebi Seicavs garkveul universalur maxasiaTeblebs, rac

tipuri unda iyos garkveuli teqstis saxeobisaTvis nebismier enaSi, magram cdomileba
SesaZlebelia dafiqsirdes aramarto gansxvavebul enobriv sivrceSi. teqstebis Se-
darebam gviCvena, rom, miuxedavad Sidaenobrivi standartis arsebobisa, pluricentrul
germanul enaSi enaTa nairsaxeobebSic vlindeba ara marto enis sxvadasxva doneze
arsebuli Taviseburebebi, aramed erTi da imave teqstis saxeobis met-naklebad gansx-
vavebuli suraTi. orive germanulenovan teqstSi jer kidev gvxvdeba leqsikur doneze
sakancelario laTinuris calkeuli erTeulebi, Sida da gareenobrivi standartis
niSnebi. teqstis am saxeobis Tanamedrove variantisagan gansxvavebiT, istoriul teqsteb-
Si prioritetulia moqmedebiTi gvari, nacvlad vnebiTisa da agreTve mravlobiTi ric-
xvis pirveli piris formebi, rac agreTve tipuri unda iyos monarqiuli saxelmwifos
samarTlebrivi dargobrivi enisaTvis. agreTve niSandoblivia brZanebiTi kilos aqti-
uri gamoyeneba qarTulsa da avstriul teqstebSi, sadac teqstis saxeobaSive gveZleva
monarqiuli saxelmwifos sakmaod srulyofili suraTi, rac agreTve Sesabamisad aris
gaformebuli enobriv doneze. amrigad, kidev ufro martivia ganmasxvavebeli niSnebis
moZieba sxva enaze warmoqmnili teqstis Tundac msgavs saxeobaSi. magram sakmarisia
garkveuli istoriuli, socio-kulturuli msgavsebis dafiqsireba sxvadasxva enis
matarabel koleqtivSi, rom teqstis formirebisas xSirad SesaZloa amoqmeddes msgavsi
enobrivi formebi, movlenebi da, Sesabamisad, xdeba teqstis saxeobis standartizacia.
aqedan gamomdinare, SegviZlia davaskvnaT, rom teqstis saxeoba, rogorc enobrivi qme-
debis konkretuli forma, garkveuli kulturis anareklia, ris gamoc enobrivi Tavisebu-
reba xSirad kulturis specifikiTaa ganpirobebuli.
literatura:
avstrieli imperatoris – iozef II-is sigeli ernst burgardt fon mengdenisaTvis grafis
titulis miniWebis Sesaxeb (22.06.1774): daculi saqarTvelos xelnawerTa erov-
nul centrSi. fondi: VAR 58a;
gamyreliZeebis sagvareulo sisxlis sigeli [1446]. (1909): krebulSi: saqarTvelos siZve-
leni. t. 2. prof. eqvTime TayaiSvilis redaqciiT. Tbilisi;
prusiis mefe vilhelmis mier ruseTis imperiis polkovnikisa da fligel-adiutantis,
husarTa polkis meTaur georg mengdenze gacemuli meore xarisxis ordeni
(27.05.1875): daculi saqarTvelos xelnawerTa erovnul centrSi. fondi: VAR 58b;
saxelos wyalobis wigni erekle II-isa zaal saamisSvilisadmi [1783]. (1965): krebulSi:
qarTuli samarTlis Zeglebi. t. II. saero-sakanonmdeblo Zeglebi (X-XIX ss.). teq-
stebi gamosca, SeniSvnebi da saZieblebi daurTo prof. i. doliZem. Tbilisi: mec-
niereba;
Adamzik, Kirsten
– (1995): Textsorten – Texttypologie. Eine kommentierte Bibliographie. Münster: Nodus Publikationen;
– (2008): Textsorten und ihre Beschreibung. In: Janich (Hrsg.)Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Narr. 145-177;
Ammon, Ulrich (1995): Die duetsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Das Problem der
nationalen Varietäten. Berlin: de Gruyter
Baumann, Klaus-Dieter (1992): Kontrastive Fachsprachenforschung. Tübingen: Narr.
Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de (1997): Textlinguistik: Zu neuen Ufern? In: Antos/Tietz (Hg.): Die Zukunft der
Textlinguistik. Traditionen, Transformationen, Trends. Tübingen: Niemeyer. SS. 1-11;
Clyne, Michael (1984): Language and Society in the German Speaking Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coulmas, Florian (1979): Sprache und Kultur. Einleitung zu Hymes, Dell: Soziolinguistik. Zur Ethnographie
der Kommunikation. Frankfurt/M., SS. 7-25;
100
Fix, Ulla (2008): Texte und Textsorten – sprachliche, kommunikative und kulturelle Phänomene. Berlin: Frank
& Timme;
Harris, Z.S. (1952): Discourse Analysis. In: Language. Vol. 28. SS. 1-30;
Henne, Helmut (1986): Jugend und ihre Sprache. Darstellung, Materialien, Kritik. Berlin/NY: de Gruyter;
Hermanns, Fritz (2003): Interkulturelle Linguistik.In: Wierlacher, Alois/Bogner, Andrea (Hg.): Habdbuch
interkulturelle Germanistik. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler. SS. 363-373;
Wiesinger, Peter (1988): Das österreichische Deutsch. Wien: Böhlau
NINO KIMERIDZE
TEXT TYPES – CULTURE-SPECIFIC LINGUISTIC PHENOMENON

(BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF GERMAN AND GEORGIAN TEXT TYPES)
Summary
Recently in scholarly literature special emphasis has been placed on the large scale interdisciplinary resources
of Text Linguistics. This is particularly so when the object of research is a certain type of text, especially a text in a
particular field of man’s activity.. In the texts in question universal textual peculiarities are combined with the fea-
tures typical of specific fields. Therefore, for the comprehensive interpretation of different text types, an interdisci-
plinary approach is of vital importance. Since a particular text is characterized by prototypical as well as culture
specific features, the study of text types has become an essential part of Text Linguistics.
The study of text types makes it possible to investigate culture-specific peculiarities of texts, i.e. text types .can
be viewed as cultural artifacts, tools for conveying cultural values. It can be said that the text creates as well as
preserves culture. The data examined in the paper is a proof of it. The study has been carried out on the material of
Austrian and Prussian grants of the 18th and 19th centuries preserved at the National Centre of Manuscripts. The
analysis of the juridical texts in question has revealed linguistic peculiarities and variability of the varieties of Stan-
dard German and Standard Austrian of the discussed period. Apart from the comparative study, a contrastive analy-
sis has also been carried out; the German texts in question were contrasted with the Georgian grants of the same
period. The contrastive study has revealed cultural specificity in the linguistic realization of the texts of the same
genre.
101
Targmanebi
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris moTxrobis interpretacia

jon beinsis mier1
statiis Targmani ekuTvnis e. avalians. komentarebi teqstis

bolos j. beinsisa da e. avalianis mier aris gakeTebuli
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi werilobiTi literaturis kompleqsur nawar-

moebs warmoadgens, romelic nawilobriv dafuZnebulia ezoTerul sibrZneze. teq-
stis zedapiruli wakiTxvis drosac ki aSkaraa misi naTesaoba xalxuri zepirsityvi-
erebis nimuSebTan: stilis, situaciis, anonimurobis da xasiaTTan midgomis Tval-
sazrisiT, rac tradiciul da andazur sibrZnesTan msgavsebaSi vlindeba. aRniSnuli
teqsti ar atarebs alegoriul xasiaTs. mzis RvTaebis samocdaToTxmeti formis
koncefcia moqceulia xalxuri zepiri gadmocemis formatSi, maSin, roca RvTiuri
sibrZne, romelic RvTaebebisadmi msxverplis Sewirvis Sesaxeb aris warmodgenili,
yovelgvar azrs moklebulia da relativizebulia RvTaebis mier aRniSnuli sakiTx-
is wamoWriT. nawarmoebis bolo nawili miTs warmoadgens, romelic dakavSirebulia
moralis sakiTxebis zomier qadagebasTan; aRniSnul Temas paralelebi daeZebneba
religiur teqstebSi. `Txroba~ warmodgenilia ciklur formatSi, sadac pirveli pi-
ris Txroba ironiuli efeqtis gasaZliereblad aris gamoyenebuli.
teqsti ar aris uSualod didaqtikuri xasiaTis, Tumca aerTianebs Tavgadasavlis
da Tavgadasavlidan miRebuli gamocdilebis sakiTxebs.
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi Tavdapirvelad miiCneoda martiv xalxur teq-
stad, Tumca mogvianebiT misi interpretacia Seicvala da SeiZina rTuli, mraval-
Sriani narativis xasiaTi, romelSic mogzauri moZraobs drosa da sivrceSi da aR-
wevs kosmosade, miTiur adgilamde, sadac igi xvdeba UuZveles RmerTs, romelic uam-
bobs mas samyaros dasasrulis Sesaxeb (qaragmebis saxiT), amis Semdeg mezRvauri
brundeba egvipteSi. teqstis axleburi midgomiT wakiTxva teqstis mniSvnelobas uf-
ro azustebs, Tumca es miRweul iqna misi winamorbedi gamocemebis gaTvaliswinebiT
da imiTac, rasac Tavad teqsti ambobs da eyrdnoba. sainteresoa teqstTan dabruneba
misi formisa da asociaciebis ganxilvis TvalsazrisiT, iseve rogorc damatebiTi
kvlevebis CarTva, raTa moxdes misi, rogorc erTiani, mTliani literaturuli na-
warmoebis gageba. Tu aRniSnul moTxrobas erT mTlianobaSi ganvixilavT, aucilebe-
lia, daisvas misi erTianobis sakiTxi iseve, rogorc daisvas sakiTxi sxvadasxva Te-
matikis erTianobisa, an maTi sxvadasxva mimarTulebis Sesaxeb. msgavsi sakiTxebis
wamoWra adasturebs im faqts, rom aRniSnuli moTxroba warmoadgens TviTcnobier,
TviTkmar literaturul nawarmoebs da is ar aris `gulubryvilo~ SemTxveviTobis
produqti.
aRniSnul mosazrebas iziarebs TiTqmis yvela is avtori, visac am bolo dros
raime dauweria mocemul teqstTan dakavSirebiT (ix. qvemoT SeniSvna 2), Tumca aRsa-
niSnavia Teoriuli midgomebic, razec aq aRar SevCerdebiT, radgan, miuxedavad imi-
sa, rom Cemi diskusia eyrdnoba da ikvlevs erTi avtoris koncefcias, aRniSnuli mi-
1
saavtoro ufleba Targmanze ekuTvnis Jurnals „civilizaciuri Ziebani~.
102
daRupuli gemis mezRvauri
znad ar isaxavs avtoris ganzraxulis xelaxal gaazrebas. Cemi mizania, movaxdino

erTgvari modelireba am moTxrobisa, rac TanamedroveobisaTvis gasagebi iqneba da
Zveli sazogadoebisaTvis idealuri. garkveulwilad Cveni midgoma dafuZnebulia im
mosazrebaze, rom egvipturi teqstebisa da codnis garkveuli nawili atarebda eq-
skluziur, an ezoTerul xasiaTs (ix. komentari 1).
aucilebelia teqsti mivakuTvnoT savaraudo garemosa da periods, saidanac mi-
si werilobiTi forma warmoiSva. radganac am teqstis mxolod erTi manuskriptia
cnobili da misi Sesadari teqsti ar SemorCenila, interpretacia metwilad damoki-
debuli unda iyos TviTon teqstis wakiTxvaze da Tematur, an kulturul analogi-
ebze, romelTa garkveuli nawili naklebad mniSvnelovania da misgan dacilebuli
(ix. komentari 2). am ukanasknel SemTxvevaSi aRsaniSnavia, rom TviT erTaderTi teq-
stic ki, SesaZlebelia, ganxilul iqnes sxva literaturul da Tundac arawerilo-
biTi formiT Seqmnili moTxrobebis gverdiT, erTgvar hipoTezur konteqstSi; amgvar
midgomebze dafuZnebulma interpretaciam SesaZloa, rom ar gaamarTlos, Tumca
msgavsi midgoma ufro misaRebia, vidre is varaudebi, romlebic am midgomas ar iTva-
liswineben. is, rac faqtobrivad ucnobia CvenTvis, aris is, Tu rogor aRiqvamdnen
TviTon egviptelebi aRniSnul teqsts; am TvalsazrisiT sinamdviles farda aexde-
boda, Tu gaviTvaliswinebdiT mraval analogiur aslebs, am Janris ganviTarebis
mogviano periodidan cnobil sxvadasxva teqsts, iseve rogorc zepiri, an sxva saxis
informacias, Tumca msgavsi informacia Zalze mwiria. aRniSnuli Sefaseba SesaZloa
Seicvalos axali garemoebiT, Tumca darigebebis teqstebTan SedarebiT, daRupuli
gemis mezRvauris ambavi ar warmoadgens farTo xasiaTis Janris Semadgenel nawils.

folkloruli analogiebi: narativis qarga da misi farTo mniSvneloba, scilde-
ba sakuTriv imas, rasac gvTavazobs da moicavs folkloruli analogia.
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi Sua xanis egviptur literaturul teqstebTan
SedarebiT stilisturad ufro `zepiri~ gadmocemis xasiaTs atarebs; dRemde Semor-
Cenili egvipturi literaturis yvela nimuSi patara jgufis wignieri elitisTvis
iyo Seqmnili da misi Sefaseba unda moxdes aRniSnuli konteqstidan gamomdinare.
metad rTulia warmovidginoT werilobiTi aslebis, an werilobiTi Txzulebebis
roli arawignier did kulturaSi. es ar niSnavs imas, rom zemoT xsenebuli litera-
turis nimuSis motivebs ar icnobdnen isini, visac uSualo Sexeba ar hqonda damwer-
lobasTan, Tumca aRsaniSnavia, rom werilobiTi teqstebi komunikaciis saSualebas
ar warmoadgenda am xalxisaTvis. Aamgvarad, miuxedavad imisa, rom axali samefos pe-
riodSi horis da seTis ambavi Sua samefos literaturul namuSevrebTan SedarebiT
naklebad elituri kompoziciis xasiaTs atarebs, gardineris mosazreba aRniSnuli
teqstis Taobaze, romelic mas miiCnevs `wminda saxalxo gamoyenebisaTvis gamiznu-
lad~, ar Seesabameba arsebul socialur realobas. mis mier danaxuli recefcia,
rom TiTqosda `sofleli ambavis mTqmeli ambavs yveba Cacucquli roxroxa glexe-
bis wreSi~, aradamajereblad gamoiyureba. zepiri gadmocemis tradiciuli forma da
Sinaarsi ucnobia, Tumca metris farTod gavrceleba, savaraudod, dakavSirebulia
mis gamoyenebasTan formalur da amaRlebul zepir oratorobaSi; amgvari konteq-
stidan gamomdinare, zepirma gadmocemam, savaraudod, logikurad ajoba damwerlo-
bas. metrika SesaZloa atarebdes zogad xasiaTs maRali kulturebisaTvis da
gvxvdebodes Cveulebriv zepir praqtikaSi, amdenad, arsebobs albaToba imisa, rom
ambvis mTxrobeli orive konteqstSi gamoCndes. momdevno xanis werilobiTi teqstebi
winamorbed gamocdilebas zepiri praqtikis saxiT gamoiyeneben, Tumca werilobiTi
variantebis dakavSireba formebisa da moculobis TvalsazrisiT rTulia da gans-
103
Targmanebi
xvavebulia maTi pirveladi zepiri kompoziciebisgan, rac mcire safuZvels gvaZlevs

Tavad zepiri formebis aRdgenisaTvis.
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi ar unda miviCnioT Sua egvipturi xanis sxva
literaturul teqstebze adreuli periodis nawarmoebad iqidan gamomdinare, rom es
teqsti ufro metad zepiri xasiaTis matarebelia. amitom, Secdoma iqneboda misi po-
ziiciis gansazRvra werilobiT da zepirsityvierebis nimuSebTan mimarTebaSi (ix.
komentari 3). misi `zepiri~ xasiaTi mniSvnelovania ara zepir narativTan kavSirSi,
aramed igi sxva literaturul teqstebTan mimarTebaSi vlindeba. teqstis zedapiru-
li maxasiaTeblebi TvalsaCinod martiv xasiaTs atarebs. leqsika da stili martivi-
a, maSin, roca struqtura daxvewili, mravalSriani xasiaTisaa da misdevs kargad Ca-
moyalibebul Txrobis xazs, mTliani pasaJi meordeba mxolod umniSvnelo variacie-
biT (23-40=89-110). sxva msgavsi SemorCenili `gulubryvilo~ xasiaTis Txzuleba aris
f. vestkari (P. Westcar), romlis Cvenamde moRweuli forma, rogorc Cans, erTi sauku-
niT gvian Seiqmna. amgvarad, daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi miznad isaxavs warmo-
aCinos zedapiruli simartive da sisadave teqstisa, es maSin, roca sxva Sua egviptu-
ri xanis `klasika~ orientirebulia gamocemis kompleqsurobaze da gamoTqmebis si-
uxveze. Mmisi stili da tonaloba ufro metad gansxvavdeba misi Tanamedrove teq-
stebisagan, vidre axali samefos teqstebisa da odnav mogviano periodis ambebisagan,
romelTa ZiriTadi nawili metad formulirebulia (ix. komentari 4); Tumca arse-
bobs gamonaklisi teqstic – venamuni (Wenamun). daRupuli gemis ambavi rTuli dat-
virTvebisa da qaragmuli Temebis gamo SeiZleba Sua samefos ezoTerikas ukavSirde-
bodes, misi zedapiruli simartive saeWvoa aRmocenebuliyo uSualod zepiri xalxu-
ri Txrobis Janridan. savaraudod, socialur, realur, zepirmetyvelebis konteqstSi
es simartive ukeTesad iqneboda Seswavlili da gagebuli. miuxedavad amisa, qaragme-
bi, rogorc Cans, xSir SemTxvevaSi ezoTerul xasiaTs atarebs, Tumca stilis gar-
kveuli maxasiaTeblebi da frazebis zepirad gameorebis sixSire, rogorc Cans, ax-
los iyo zepirmetyvelebis formasTan, kompozicia ki, erTi mTliani konteqstis sa-
xiT, savaraudod ar Seesabameboda zepirsityvierebis teqstebis nimuSebs. ZiriTadad,
Txrobis qarga axorcielebs zepiri formis imitacias ara imiT, rom TviTon ambavi
sam nawilad aris warmodgenili erTi moTxrobis SigniT, aramed imitom, rom uma-
tebs qaragmebs da amWidrovebs teqsts imis nacvlad, rom gaamdidros teqsti uxvi
stilisturi gamoTqmebiT.Aàmbavi~ werilobiTi literaturis statusis matarebeli
unda iyos da gansxvavebulia papirusisagan, romelic afiqsirebs zepir kompozicias.
es mosazreba warmoCenilia teqstis dakninebiT (xarvezebiT), romelsac unda hqono-
da werilobiTi saxe (ix. komentari 5).
nebismier SemTxvevaSi saeWvoa, rom momxdariyo zepiri kompoziciis mxolod er-
Ti Canaweris saxiT gadarCena da Cvenamde moRweva.
`zepiri~ konteqsti gaZlierebulia teqstis pirveli sityvebiT – dd jn, romelic,
rogorc Cans, ikiTxeboda, rogorc `Rirseuli mTqmelis saubari~ da ara rogorc
`Semdeg Rirseulma mosaubrem dailaparaka~. es winadadeba warmoadgens ara mTlian
sintaqsur formas, aramed werilobiTi konteqstebis damaxasiaTebel Canawerebs,
Tumca aRniSnuli ar aris identuri werilobiTi formiT warmodgenili saubrebisa
(Cveulebriv dd mdw, am formatSi gamoyenebisTvis zedmetad formalur xasiaTs ata-
rebs); aRniSnuli Sesavali, rogorc Cans, amtkicebs teqstis werilobiTi saxis kom-
poziciur xasiaTs, romlis mizans saubari warmoadgens. amis Semdgom, Tuki xdeboda
teqstis zepirsityvierebaSi gadatana da es aucileblad unda momxdariyo ase, teq-
sti iZens ukve damatebiT formalur Sesavals.
amdenad, teqstis prezentacia qmnis iseT formas, rom auditoriam warmodgenil-
Si Seicnos zepirsityvierebaSi Seqmnili saxalxo ambis imitaciuri saxe, rac es kon-
104
teqsti zemoqmedebas axdens da ganmartavs Sinaarss. aRniSnuli zepirsityvierebis,

an folkloruli analogiis aspeqtebis gaTvaliswineba sainteresoa, magram Cems mi-
zans warmoadgens ara teqstis motivis analizi folkloruli kvlevis safuZvelze,
aramed misi moCvenebiTi folkloruli aspeqtebis danaxva literaturuli konteq-
stis farglebSi; am TvalsazrisiT farTo xasiaTis interkulturuli Sedarebani
uadgiloa, Tumca sxva sakiTxebTan mimarTebaSi maT SesaZloa hqondeT ufro mniSvne-
lovani Rirebuleba.
folkloruli moTxrobebisaTvis damaxasiaTebel tipur Taviseburebas warmoad-
gens mis gmirTa saxelebis araRniSvna. mxolod erTaderT SemTxvevaSia miTiTebuli
konkretuli adgilebi, moqceuli qargaSi, sadac vavati da biga arian moxseniebulni
(9-10) da esec ZiriTadi moTxrobis pirvel winadadebaSia, romelic, rogorc Cans, si-
naiSi xdeba(23-4, meordeba 89-90). personaJebi icnoba maTi titulebis mixedviT, HAtj-aj
da Smsw, da ara maTi rolis konkretuli miTiTebiT. mefe moxseniebulia SesavalSi,
iseve rogorc moTxrobaSi, Tumca mefis saxeli ar aris moxseniebuli da arc gveli
ar aris dasaxelebuli sakuTari saxeliT. aRniSnul anonimurobas SesaZloa hqonda
ufro farTo, TiTqmis kvazimiTosuri datvirTva.
mayureblis motivi (rogorc SeiZleba daxasiaTdes šmsw/mTxrobeli), romelic
ipyrobs yuradRebas sakuTari ambiT, savaraudod folkloruli sawyisis matarebe-
lia, romelsac hqonda moTxrobisaTvis erTgvari Sesavlis saxe; teqstis farglebSi
es qmnis erTgvar simZafres imasTan dakavSirebiT, rom is, rac yvelaze sainteresoa,
mocemulia ara moTxrobaSi, aramed Cndeba mis konteqstSi. aqedan gamomdinare, savse-
biT SesaZlebelia, rom moTxrobebis mTeli ciklis damuSaveba da daRupuli gemis
mezRvauris ambavi, SesaZloa, warmoiqmna kidec aRniSnuli ciklidan, an msgavsi sa-
xis moTxrobisagan. arsebuli wyoba tovebs erTgvar sivrces didi ciklisTvis, rad-
gan mTavari personaJi ar iZleva cnobas sakuTari Tavis Sesaxeb, Tumca naratori
gvTavazobs moralur mxardaWeras misTvis manam, sanam is miaRwevs sataxto qalaqs,
sazRvris CrdiloeTiT, mravaldRiani mogzaurobis Semdeg. ciklebi da cikluri
konteqstebi gavrcelebulia rogorc egviptur literaturaSi, iseve folklorul
moTxrobebSi, Tumca gvelis moTxrobis ZiriTadi Sinaarsi, rogorc Cans, ar Seesaba-
meba cikls da ufro metad savaraudo xdeba ciklis formasTan erTgvari simbolu-
ri mimarTeba da ara misi warmoSoba aRniSnuli ciklidan.
mayurebeli, e.w. `mezRvauris~ saxiT, ganekuTvneba jgufs, romelic bevr sazoga-
doebaSi cnobili aris e.w. grZeli ambebis mTxrobelis saxiT: aseTi adamianis pirSi
moTxrobis `ganTavseba~ niSnavs, rom es pirobiTad unda iqnes aRqmuli. igive midgo-
ma damuSavebulia hardiedefis (Hardjedef) mier f. vestkarSi (P. Westcar), sadac es uka-
naskneli aRniSnavs, rom sakuTari epizodis winmswrebi ambebi dakavSirebulia wina
periodebTan da maTSi gadmocemuli simarTlis garCeva gamogonili ambisagan metad
rTul sakiTxs warmoadgens. magaliTisaTvis, sainteresoa jedis (Djedi) saqmeni da
gansakuTrebiT sami momavali mefis dabadebis ambavi. naratoris mier daRupuli ge-
mis mezRvauris ambavze arCevanis gakeTeba SedarebiT gaurkvevelia da SesaZloa es
sakiTxi Seswavlil iqnes mraval doneze. ZiriTadi Sinaarsi imdenad seriozulia,
rom Riad ar aris formulirebuli, Sesabamisad, naratoris mier mis gaufasurebas
da gaubraloebas azri ekargeba. Uufro metad savaraudoa, rom teqsti grZeli ambis
erTi nawilia, romelic nebismieri wignieri mkiTxvelisTvis aris gaTvaliswinebuli
da Sinaarsis dafarvis mizniT moTxrobilia ararealuri naratoris mier. TviTon
mTxrobeli SeiZleba akeTebdes erTgvar miniSnebas sakuTar orazrovan statusze
sityvebiT, roca is ambobs, rom is: `Tavisufalia gazviadebebisgan~ (12-13), Tumca es
fraza yvelgan Cndeba, dakavSirebulia mogzaurobasTan da savsebiT SesaZlebelia,
105
Targmanebi
rom warmoadgendes šmsw-saTvis Cveulebriv gansazRvrebas. Tumca, ukve momdevno am-

bis TxrobaSi aRniSnuli gamoTqma unda atarebdes erTgvar ironiul datvirTvas.
braianis (Bryan) SeniSvnis Tanaxmad, mTxrobeli Sors aris Tavad `gmiris~ saxisa-
gan, is iziarebs protagonistis saxes, rac gvxvdeba sxva mTxrobelTa momentSic,
mTavari gmirebis personasTan mimarTebaSi, Tumca uiRblo mogzauri, romelic marc-
xs ganicdis da ar icis rogor moiqces arsebul situaciaSi, SesaZloa, warmoadgen-
des ara `cud komikur magaliTs~, aramed moTxrobis saxasiaTo gmirs, romelsac
warmogviCens naratori. misi saxis ZiriTadi datvirTva imaSi mdgomareobs, rom war-
marTos moTxroba. es momenti ar gvaZlevs daksvnebis gakeTebis saSualebas teqstis
folkloruli analogiebis Sesaxeb, Tumca braiani marTali unda iyos, rodesac mi-
iCnevs, rom mTxrobeli warmoadgens garkveul `tipaJs~, anu Janris saxes da ara sru-
liad damoukidebel saxes. misi ganmeorebiTi Secdomebi da gaugebrobebi SesaZloa
momdinareobdes nacnobi repertuaris situaciebidan da atarebs Tavad moTxrobis
ganviTarebisaTvis arsebiT xasiaTs. is, rac gansaxvavebs narators sinuxes saxasia-
To gmirisagan (aseve šmsw, zemoT SeniSvna. 19), an glexsEèloqentis glexSi~ (Eloquent
Peasant), am SemTxvevaSi aris mTxrobelis zedapiruli xasiaTi: araferi fsiqologiu-
ri ar Cndeba mis mier ganvlil transformaciebSi da es aspeqti areklilia Txro-
bis stilzec. erTgvari moraluri, an didaqtikuri gzavnilebi mTxrobels warmod-
genili aqvs mxolod misi da gvelis sentenciur, andazuri xasiaTis gamonaTqvamebSi.
moTxrobaSi da misi konteqstis sxva mocemulobebSi eTikuri qveteqstebi personaJis
daxmarebiT ar aris realizebuli. folkloruli analogia teqsts aqac sqematuro-
bis mniSvnelobas sZens, magram konteqsti da sqemis didebuleba sakmaod rTul, kom-
pleqsur xasiaTs iZens, maSin, roca pirveli piris Txrobis manera gamoricxavs ne-
bismier martiv mimarTebas folklorul istoriebTan.
ZiriTadi motivebis, situaciebisa da formulirebebis gamoyeneba TvalSi sacemia
moTxrobis ori ambis Sesaval nawilSi, romelic moqceulia Tavad moTxrobaSi. šmsw
Sesavlis bolo nawils iwyebs Semdegi andaziT: àdamians gadaarCens misi piri~ (17-18),
Txrobas ki iwyebs formuliT: `neba momeci mogiyve Sen ise, rogorc / rac moxda...~
(21-2), rac sityvasityviT meordeba agreTve gvelis mier (125). moTxrobebi warmodge-
nilia àndazisebri~ pasuxebis formiT garkveul situaciebTan mimarTebaSi da maTi
detaluri dasabuTebuli xasiaTi, erTimeoris analogiebis saxiT, gamaxvilebulia
formaluri paralelizmiT. aRniSnuli qarga kontrastulia gvelis Sesaval moTx-
robaSi, rac uaxlovdeba gadamwyvet, ZiriTad azrs (124):
rogori iRbliania is, vinc yveba mis (mware) gamocdilebis
Sesaxeb (mas Semdeg), rac
misma tanjvam Caiara.
es gancxadeba, romelic aseve andazis xasiaTs atarebs, folkloris wiaRSi da
sxva moTxrobebSia warmodgenili, radgan is uzrunvelyofs ambis Txrobis dasru-
lebas da ganWvrets `bednier dasasruls~, an, sul mcire, migvaniSnebs protogonis-
tis safrTxeebidan gadarCenaze, Tumca es mizani teqstSi savaraudod ufro srulad
aris warmodgenili. es komentari ukeTdeba rogorc mezRvauris, ise gvelis ambavsac,
romelic maSinve mosdevs pirvel moTxrobas, maSin, roca ganacxadi marTebulia teq-
stis farglebSi da mis gareTac. aRniSnuli gancxadeba aseve ukavSirdeba gvelis
moralis TviTkontrolirebis sakiTxs da imasac, TuU rogor daexmareba igi mezRva-
urs saxlSi dabrunebaSi, rac moxda arapirdapiri gziTa da gagebiT, aramed sazoga-
doebaSi mezRvauris integrirebiT.
aRniSnuli moraluri debulebebi kontrastulia sxva CarTvebTan SedarebiT, er-
Tiani moTxrobis SigniT, romelic Semdgom erT andazisebr qargas qmnis, an, sul
106
mcire, stereotipuli debulebebis saxe aqvs. naratoris Sefaseba, romelic eqspedi-

ciis xelmZRvanelis naTqvams gadmogvcems : – àdamians gadaarCens misi piri~, ironi-
uli unda iyos konteqstSi, radganac winamZRolis sruli dumili situaciis ironi-
zirebaa da SesaniSnavi paraleli daeZebneba eloqentis glexis ambavSi. bolos nara-
tori ambobs (180-2):
Semomxede me mas Semdeg, rac mivaRwie miwas,
mas Semdeg, rac me gamovcade.
amis Semdeg, momismine [me]. mosmena kargia adamianisTvis.
aRniSnuli pasaJi kvlav paradoqsul xasiaTs atarebs, radgan yvelaferi, rac wi-
namZRolma gaakeTa, aris is, rom igi iqceva datyvevebuli auditoriis msgavsad (ix.
komentari 7), Tumca amjerad man unda ilaparakos, mosmenis nacvlad. aRniSnul or
debulebas Soris kontrasti gaZlierebulia imiT, rom orives win uZRvis fraza `mo-
mismine me~ (12, 181-2 [saeWvoa, ix. bolo SeniSvna]). `miwaze misvlam (miRwevam)~ SesaZ-
loa gamoiwvios sikvdili da dakrZalva, saboloo SeCereba da miwasTan miaxloeba,
rac gvelma adre axsena (169). Sesamabisad, `gamocdileba~ (dpj) warmoadgens amosaval
sityvas, romelic gvelis moTxrobis SesavalSi Cndeba da iRebs formalur saxes.
sinuxes ambavSi moyvanilia am formulirebis paralelebi, Tumca maTi mniSvneloba
SesaZloa iyos ufro Rrma da naklebad literaturuli, rac efuZneba ZiriTad kate-
goriebs da sibrZnes, romelic aq aRwers processa da mis sasruls rogorc realur
movlenebTan, aseve moTxrobis SedegebTan mimarTebaSi, da Tanac ise, rom maTi xasia-
Ti gansxvavebulia darigebebis teqstebSi warmodgenili msgavsi xasiaTis debulebe-
bisagan.
teqstis bolo winadadeba warmoTqmulia eqspediciis winamZRolis mier (185-6):
vin aZlevs Cit[s] wyals ganTiadisas,
rodesac mas daklaven (moklaven) dilas?
es gamoTqma andazis, an aforizmis xasiaTs atarebs, Tumca sxva andazebisagan
gansxvavebiT, misi mniSvneloba qaragmaSia gadmocemuli da ara pirdapir naTqvamSi.
am gamoTqmam SesaZloa teqstis mniSvnelobas SesZinos ironiuli xasiaTi, an misi
funqcia daukavSiros ufro metad moTxrobas da winamZRolis gadauwyvetel bedis-
weras. sfelingerma da devauCelem (Spalinger, Devauchelle) am gamonaTqvamis mniSvneloba
paralelebiT gaamdidres: winamZRoli moixseniebs frinvelisaTvis wylis micemis
wes-Cveulebas mis dakvlamde, risi religiuri konteqsti, an SesaZlo religiuri
mniSvnelobac, ar aris cnobili. aRniSnuli tradicia gamoricxavs frazis: `vinc
miscemda wyals...~ adre gavrcelebul interpretacias, romlis Tanaxmadac aRniSnul
qmedebas ar gaaCnia aranairi mniSvneloba. amis sanacvlod, winamZRoli aris Citi da
misi andaziseburi SekiTxvis pasuxia: `mkvleli~ – mTxrobeli, naratori, romelic
gascems `wyals~, anu moTxrobas. aRniSnuli xedva situaciis savaraudo interpreta-
ciaa, romlis Tanaxmadac winamZRoli xedavs mTxrobels mis bralmdeblad, mamxi-
leblad, misi eqspediciis warumateblobis gamo, magram es saeWvoa, radgan winamZRo-
lis eqspedicia dabrunda marcxis gareSe ukan (7-11), miuxedavad imisa, rom mizani
miRweuli mainc ar iqna. erTaderTi Sesabamisi Tanamimdevruli interpretacia, rom-
lis SemoTavazebac me SemiZlia, aris is, rom : winamZRoli imdenad sasowarkveTilia,
naratori daxmarebis nacvlad, mas sakuTari ambis TxrobiT utevs.
andazebis gamoyeneba Txrobis formulisagan gansxvavebulia da iribad mimarTe-
bas amJRavnebs `folklorul~ SinaarsTan, Tumca am or meqanizms SesaZloa hqondes
saerTo mizani. andazebis morali seriozulad unda iyos aRqmuli, Tumca teqstis
nebismieri saxis Semcireba prezentaciis momentSi gacilebiT banalurs xdis mis mo-
107
Targmanebi
ralur mxares da es ar aris marTebuli. andaza Tavis xarisxs inarCunebs, rogorc

zepirsityvierebis sibrZnis nimuSi. is Cndeba teqstis mniSvnelovani xasiaTis epizo-
debSi, iseve, rogorc umniSvnelo adgilebSic da warmoadgens meqanikurad SekumSul
idea-gzavnilis. msgavsi midgoma damaxasiaTebelia zepiri saubrebis, zepiri Txrobi-
sa da sxva zepiri JanrebisaTvis, aseve werilobiT da maRalkulturul konteqstSic
Cndeba, sadac frCxilebSia moTavsebuli. isini movlenebis mniSvnelobas ayalibeben,
rogorc es xdeba folklorul ambavSi da, Sesabamisad, eyrdnobian ara sxva abso-
lutur mniSvnelobebs, aramed folklorul kategoriebs. aRniSnuli relatiuroba
ewinaaRmdegeba zogierT kanons andazebis ganzogadebuli Rirebulebebis gamo, rac
kargi iqneboda TiTqmis nebismier situaciaSi, Tumca sakiTxi imaSia, rom teqsti war-
mogvidgens Tanabrad rogorc movlenebs, ise garkveul zneobriv komentarebs im
formiT, romelic maT Rirebulebas ara zogadi TvalsazrisiT, aramed ufro Sida
diskursSi, msjelobis procesSi avlens.
maSin, roca andazebis es relativizacia da maTi morali SeiZleba ar iyos kri-
tikuli, analogiuri relativizacia da kritikuloba SeiZleba axasiaTebdes mTel
moTxrobas mTlianobaSi. m. T. derxain-urTelis (M. T. Derchain-Urtel) Tanaxmad, teqstSi
naCvenebia gveli, Sesaqmis RvTaeba, romelic gadaurCa, savaraudod, mis qaliSvil ma-
atTan erTad, samyaros dasasrulis katastrofas da, sxva RvTaebebis ganadgurebis
gverdiT, es idea simbolurad gamoxatulia mzis RvTaebis samocdaToTxmeti formiT.
kunZuli, sadac cxovrobs aRniSnuli arseba, warmoadgens kosmosis gareT myof nam-
dvilad fantastikur sivrces, romelic arsebobs drosa da sivrcis gareSe; aRniS-
nuli adgili arsebobs mxolod teqstSi da gauCinardeba mTxrobelis mier gvelTan
Sexvedris Semdeg. Aambis amgvari gaazreba ar gamoricxavs sxva interpretaciebs. al-
ternatiul azrs gvTavazobs simpsoni (W. K. Simpson):
teqstis wakiTxva nawilobriv SeiZleba astronomiuli metaforis saxiT; gvelis
mzis saxiT, Camovardnili varskvlavi ..., oTxi Tvis vada, ori Tvis Semdeg mogzauro-
bidan dabruneba, da gemi, romelic iZireba talRebSi 120 adamianiT, romelnic mxo-
lod mogvianebiT gamoCndebian xelaxla(?).
aRniSnuli teqstis wakiTxva, iseve rogorc kurTis (Kurth) interpretacia, rome-
lic xedavs moTxrobas yoveldRiuri solaruli ciklis gamovlinebad, Seesabameba
goedikiseul (Goedicke) (ix. zemoT SeniSvna 31) alegoriul interpretacias. am Sem-
TxvevaSi sirTules warmoadgens is, rom moTxroba mxolod `nawilobriv~ aris ale-
goriuli – rac ar aris zusti da bolomde naTeli simarTlisa da sicruis alego-
riis SemTxvevaSi, romelTa siuJeti qmnis ufro Tanamimdevrul analogias osirisisa
da seTis miTebTan mimarTebaSi. kurTis da simpsonis wakiTxvam SesaZloa datvirTva
daumatos mTxrobelis gamocdilebas, misi gamocdilebis sxva kosmiur nimuSSi asax-
viT, Tumca aRniSnuli ar akninebs teqstis mniSvnelobas, an ar gamoricxavs derCein-
urTelis (Derchain-Urtel) naklebad moridebul da metad dasabuTebul interpretacias;
am mosazrebebs Soris arCevanis gakeTebac rTuli xdeba. im SemTxvevaSi, Tu miRebu-
li iqneba Sinaarsis mravalSrianoba, maSin rogorc moTxrobis mravalSriani xasia-
Ti, ise Txzulebis `folkloruli~ maxasiaTeblebi, SeinarCunebs interpretaciisaT-
vis ganuyreli nawilis xasiaTs.
ZiriTadi koncefcia samyaros dasasrulis Sesaxeb da mzis RvTaebis samocda-
ToTxmeti variantis idea warmodgenilia ise, rogorc folkloris nimuSebisaTvis
iyo damaxasiaTebeli. samyaros dasasrulTan dakavSirebuli sxva teqstebi, rogori-
caa, magaliTad, sarkofagebis teqstebis (Coffin Texts) aRniSvna 1130 da micvalebulTa
wignis (Book of the Dead) 175-e Tavi, Semonaxulia SedarebiT farTod gavrcelebul wya-
roebSi da ZiriTadad miCneulia, rom isini ar warmoadgens samgloviaro teqstebi-
dan momdinare teqstebsa da warmoiqmna damoukidebeli literaturuli kompozicie-
108
bisgan, Tumca mzis RvTaebis samocdaToTxmeti forma cnobilia mxolod ra-s lita-
niidan, romelic pirvelad dadasturebulia axal samefoSi da Semdgom ukve metad
SezRudul konteqstebSi gvxvdeba. ventes da asmanis (Wente, Assmann) msgavsad mimaC-
nia, rom litania, miwisqveSeTis wignebis darad, Seiqmna Sua samefos xanaSi, ise, ro-
gorc daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi, Tumca aRniSnuli teqstebi monumentebze
ar dawerila axal samefos xanamde. samocdaToTxmeti saxelis CamonaTvali, rome-
lic ar warmoadgens uwyvet gadmocemas, SesaZloa, iyos Sua samefos werilobiT
versiebTan SedarebiT Zveli, Sesabamisad, warmoadgendes dafaruli codnis nawils
im periodidan, sanam adgili eqneboda werilobiTi teqstebis gamoyenebas; sakiTxis
amgvari Sefaseba ar mimaCnia marTebulad. aRniSnuli mosazrebebi momdinareobs ven-
tesa da asmanis sxvadasxva interpretaciidan, rom Tavdapirveli konteqsti micvale-
bulTa wignebisa ar warmoadgenda gardacvlili mefis bedis ambavs im qveynad, ara-
med Cveulebriv solarul kults exeboda (asmani) an misma aspeqtma moaxdina indivi-
debis ìniciaciaSi~ CarTva (vente).
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi SesaZloa im rwmenis gamoZaxili iyos, rome-
lic litaniaSi samocdaToTxmeti (aRniSnuli ufro metad warmoadgens CamonaTvals
da ara eqspozicias) formiT Cndeba, an TviTon migviTiTebdes litaniaze. nebismier
SemTxvevaSi, mrwamsis gansakuTrebuloba inarCunebs TviTmyofadobas: ambavi warmog-
vidgens gasaidumloebuli codnis garkveul nawils, romelic arasakralur konteq-
stSia warmodgenili. igive savaraudod Seesabameba simpsonis àstronomiuli meta-
foris~ versias. gasaidumloebuli codnis aRniSnuli magaliTebi, cvlilebis gare-
Se, Znelad Tu moxvdeboda moTxrobaSi ise, rom maTi arapirdapiri gamoyenebis xasi-
aTi warmoadgendes maTi arsebobis ganuyofel nawils. aRniSnuli cvlilebebis gar-
da, `folkloruli~ forma SesaZloa iyos swored is, rac SesaZlebels xdis maT ga-
moyenebas. Aamis Sedegi aris is delikaturi balansi, romelic vlindeba ezoTeruli
masalis warmoCenasa da dafarvaSi. aRniSnuli transpozicia dakavSirebulia egvip-
tur kulturul artefaqtebSi dekorumis gavrcelebasTan (SeniSvna 8).
jerjerobiT, Cem mier ganxilul iqna kavSirebi moTxrobis werilobiT stilsa
da sxva variacias Soris da, meore mxriv ki, zepirsa da folklorul stils Soris
arsebuli damokidebuleba, Tumca me ar damikavSirebia moTxroba realur folklo-
rul ambebTan, ris safuZvels warmoadgenda moTxrobisa da egviptur religiur kon-
cefciebs Soris arsebuli kavSirebi. es midgoma erTgvarad SezRudulia, radganac
arsebobs analogiebi siuJetsa da folklorul ambebs Soris. kurTis (Kurth) SeniS-
vnis Tanaxmad, Sedarebebi mogzaurobasTan, gemis daRupvasTan da sxva magaliTebTan,
sxva kulturebsa da epoqebSi bundovan xasiaTs atareben, Tumca zogadad Sesabami-
sobaSi modian ideasTan, radgan isini warmoadgenen ambis nawils, romelic fol-
klorul modelSi jdeba. aRsaniSnavia garkveuli Sexvedrebi egviptur moTxrobebsa
da folklorul ambebSi warmodgenil mogzaurobis motivTan dakavSirebiT, Tumca
sinuxes da venamunis Tanaxmad, aSkaraa, rom aRniSnuli Tema ar aris SezRuduli
folkloruli stilis teqstebSi, ase rom, daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavSi Se-
saZloa am Temas hqondes ufro farTo mniSvneloba. Cemi azriT, aRniSnul Temas or-
magi xasiaTi aqvs, orive folkloruli datvirTvisaa da scdeba uSualod egviptur
samyaros. es sakiTxi sruliad aSkaraa im konteqstSi, roca naratori kosmosis kide-
Si mogzaurobs da es momenti teqstis formaluri da Tematuri struqturis nawi-
lis Semadgenelia, romelSic mTxrobelis mogzauroba aris rogorc literaturuli
wiaRsvla, aseve progresia Rirebulebebisa da gonivruli wvdomisa, rac warmodgeni-
lia msmenelisTvis, vidre mis mier aris gacnobierebuli (sinuxeSi progresia ufro
Sida transformaciis xasiaTs atarebs).
109
Targmanebi
saboloo aspeqti folkloruli analogiisa aris teqstis damokidebuleba zneo-

basTan, an mis zneobriv gagebasTan. gemis ekipaJisa da gvelis Tanamgzavrebis sasti-
ki bedi tipuria folkloruli ambebisaTvis, sadac borotis ganadgureba, an siuJe-
tis moqmedi pirebis ubraloeba Cveulebriv ambavs warmoadgens. teqstSi mogvianebiT
rogorc mTxrobeli, aseve gveli pirveli faTerakis daZlevis Semdeg, aRar zrunaven
gardacvlili Tanamgzavrebis bedze. am SemTxvevaSi nebismieri wminda moraluri gan-
cdebi namdvilad uadgiloa. msgavsi perspeqtiva SesaZloa gamovlindes teqstis mra-
vali safexuridan mxolod erT-erTSi.
erTi motivi, romelic savaraudod dakavSirebulia sibrZnis nacnob, Tumca gan-
sxvavebul maxasiaTebelTan, da romelic ar warmoadgens folklorul motivs, aris
is, rom gveli uars ambobs mTxrobelisagan miiRos Sesawiri. Ees aris gvelis mier
Sesawiris uaryofa, romlis gaRebas naratori sTavazobs mas; Sesawiris uaryofa
xdeba imis safuZvelze, rom mas (gvels) ukve yvelaferi aqvs sakmarisi raodenobiT
(149-52). rogorcEe. hornungi (E. Hornung) SeniSnavs, msgavsi daZabuloba ideebSi aris
fundamenturi, RvTaebebsa da kacobriobas Soris arsebuli urTierTobis dros; sa-
nam adamianebi SeZleben RvTaebebisTvis msxverplis Sewirvas, RvTaebebs (ukve) yvela-
feri aqvT, Tumca isini elian am Sesawirs da amisaTvis pozitiurad arian ganwyobi-
lebi. daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavSi SeTavazebuli Sesawiris usafuZvloba SeiZ-
leba SevadaroT arfistis zogierTi simRerebis pozicias, rom azri ara aqvs RvTae-
bisaTvis Sesawiris gaRebas, radganac es burusiT mocul momavals ukavSirdeba, rac
am SemTxvevaSi adamianis sikvdili da samarxia. erTi mxriv, aRniSnuli warmodgenebi
dakavSirebulia warsulTan, riTac gvelic asxvavebs Sesawirs (159-60). Sesawiris
usargeblobis idea cnobilia darigebebidanac, Tumca Sesawiris mniSvneloba gan-
sxvavebulia im konteqstSi, rac Tavdapirvelad dakavSirebulia personalur magiur
da religiur sakiTxebTan, amis Semdgom ki, RvTaebis kultTan. ZiriTadi sazrunavi
am SemTxvevaSi dakavSirebulia, rogorc Cans, imasTan, rom aranairi kavSiri ar aris
adamianursa da RvTaebrivs Soris, RvTaebebi ar Seismenen da ar pasuxoben adamianis
yuradRebas. es azri ewinaaRmdegeba daRupuli gemis mezRvauris konteqsts, Tumca
ambavSi aRniSnuli problema ar aris MmTavari, radgan miTi, romelsac igi moixseni-
ebs, sxva ramezea fokusirebuli. eWvebi da skepticizmi am qmedebis Taobaze, rom
adamianebi RmerTebs Sesawirs miarTmeven, rogorc Cans, iseve gavrcelebuli azria,
rogorc Tavad RvTaebebi. rodesac gveli avrcobs aRniSnul ideas, situacia ironi-
ulia RmerTisaTvis, radgan RvTaeba, romelic yuradRebas aqcevs adamians, am ukanas-
knels eubneba, rom man ar unda izrunos RvTaebebze tradiciuli gziT; is adamians
aZlevs TiTqmis zustad imas, ris SeTavazebasac Tavad adamiani gegmavda RmerTis-
Tvis. aqedan gamomdinare, rom Sexeduleba Sesawiris gaRebis Sesaxeb sazogadod yo-
velgvar efeqturobas iyo moklebuli, rTuli dasakavSirebelia socialur an reli-
giur konteqstTan, Tumca mniSvnelovani aris is, rom aRniSnuli pozicia ar warmo-
adgendes sakiTxis unikalur wvdomas. amave dros, gvelis sakuTari gadatanili tan-
jvis istoria gviCvenebs imas, rom arsebobs erTgvari dawesebuli zRvrebi rogorc
RvTaebriv SesaZleblobebze, ise adamianur SesaZleblobebze, msxverplis gaRebis
TvalsazrisiT.
miTi da moraluroba
folklori uzrunvelyofs qargas, siuJets da ramdenime sxva maxasiaTebels teq-
stisTvis, Tumca, zogadad, folkloruli ambebi ar Seicavs centralur religiur
warmodgenebsa da Rirebulebebs, es maSin, roca miTSi es yovelive Serwymulia; sam-
yaros dasasrulis umTavresi idea da Semoqmedis gadarCena gvelis saxiT ki ufro
metad miTiuria, vidre folkloruli. Sesabamisad, teqsti ar warmoadgens miTs, miu-
110
xedavad imisa, rom miTosuri literaturuli narativebi, rogorc Cans, arsebobda

Sua samefos periodSic. Sesabamisad, miTiuri nawili Cadebulia folklorul qarga-
Si da ZiriTadad warmodgenilia qaragmuli saxiT da Zalian arapirdapiri mokle
moTxrobis formiT. miTiuri masalis msgavsi qaragmuli miniSnebebiT gamdidreba Cve-
ulebriv movlenas warmoadgens egviptur teqstebSi. erTi ganmasxvavebeli niSani aq
aris is, rom miTosuri nawili mocemulia gvelis ambiT, razec keTdeba komentarebi.
miTosuri nawilidan gansxvavebuli, ufro kritikuli, folkloruli konteqsti eW-
vqveS ayenebs moTxrobis sinamdviles da damajereblobas (bolo nawilSi iyo amaze
msjeloba). miuxedavad amisa, saeWvoa, rom miTi aRniSnuli midgomis gamo gaufasur-
des. dafaruli/gasaidumloebuli codna aq saTanadod daculia da warmodgenilia,
radganac es codna sxvagan ver warmoCndeboda.
egvipturi formatisaTvis normaluria samyaros dasasrulis koncefciis aRwera,
rac mianiSnebs miTosur versiaSi momavalze, Tumca aRniSnuli am konteqstSi misaRe-
bia, radgan igi mocemulia TxrobiT struqturaSi, mocemulia warsul droSi da ga-
aCnia awmyos mniSvneloba, rac anadgurebs droisa da sivrcis ganzomilebebs. msgav-
si moTxrobebis kompleqsuri xasiaTi aSkaraa aRniSnul magaliTSi, radgan gvelis
mokle ambavi (126-32; aTi metruli xazi) warmodgenilia calke da mas mosdevs mora-
li, am ambidan gamomdinare, xolo am or teqstSi ise Cans, TiTqos mokle teqsti ga-
erTianebulia ufro didi moculobis moTxrobaSi, Tumca aRniSnuli erTianobis
SemTxveviTobis varaudi usafuZvloa. ufro metadac, aRniSnuli mokle, ZiriTadi pa-
saJi moiTxovs gansakuTrebul fokusirebas da, Sesabamisad, `gamoyofas~.
samyaros aRsasrulis miTis kavSiri moralurobasTan Cndeba daRupuli gemis am-
bavSi, CT 1130 da BD 175. TiToeul SemTxvevaSi morali sulier, an mSobliur Rire-
bulebebs aniWebs ufro met mniSvnelobas, vidre didebas, warmatebas, an simdidres.
sarkofagis teqstebis Tanaxmad, adamianuri yofa imitom Seiqmna, raTa amiT xeli Se-
wyoboda Tanasworobas da Rirseuli saqcielis warmoCenas sikvdilis moaxloebis
momentSi – es koncefcia SesaZloa ukavSirdebodes cocxlebsac da micvalebuleb-
sac. Semdgom pasaJSi, romelic SesaZloa momdinareobdes calkeuli wyarodan, es
gancxadeba relativirebulia deklaraciiT, rom yvelaferi dasruldeba da daiwyeba
Tavidan, Tumca am farTo konteqstis mniSvneloba aq dakavSirebulia mxolod teq-
stis samgloviaro miznebTan. BD 175-Si Semoqmedi RmerTi osiriss dalocavs, rome-
lic gadarCeba samyaros dasasrulis Semdeg da romelTanac micvalebulebi arian
gaigivebulni: `saxeSecvlilebi wylis savaneSi, haerSi da (seqsualuri) kmayofileba
da simSvide gulSi, purisa da ludis sanacvlod~. daRupuli mezRvauris gemis am-
bavSi morali naklebad gasagebia. misi `Tanamgzavrebis~ ganadgurebis Semdeg gveli,
rogorc Cans, mSviddeba sakuTar mwuxarebas Seguebuli. es momenti Tavisi mniSvne-
lobiT Sedarebulia gemis ekipaJis danakargTan, Tumca gvelis sityva amis Semdeg
mTxrobels uqadis dabrunebas ojaxSi, rac `yvelaferze ukeTesia~, – dasasruli,
romelic damokidebulia misi `gulis~ `gakontrolebaze~ (132-4). aRniSnul momentSi,
is (mezRvauri) ugulebelyofs eqspediciis winamZRolis rols Cveulebriv individ-
Tan mimarTebaSi (SeniSvna 9) – iseve rogorc CT 1130-is Rirebulebebi dakavSirebu-
lia mTel kacobriobasTan – Tumca igi ase aRar iqceva teqstis gagrZelebaSi.
morali, romelic Ggvelma gamoitana Tavis gamocdilebidan, warmoadgens teqs-
tis yvelaze uferul da paradoqsul elements. am konteqstis miTosuri interpreta-
ciis Tanaxmad: kosmosisa da im sxva arsebebis ganadgurebis Semdeg, visTanac gvels
ucxovria, yvelaferi is, rac gadarCenilia, dakavSirebulia Zlevamosilebis warmo-
CenasTan, danakargis miuxedavad. im SemTxvevaSi, Tu gveli Semoqmedia, is Tavisuf-
ldeba pasuxismgeblobisagan im danakargis gamo, romelic daekisra fizikur Zalas
– meteors –vidre RmerTis nebas. am adgilebis wakiTxva moralur konteqstSi, ro-
111
Targmanebi
gorc Cans, naZaladev formas atarebs, radganac am movlenebSi monawileobas iReben

zemoraluri da zepersonaluri kategoriebi, Tumca aRniSnuli amgvarad unda iqnes
SenarCunebuli, radgan gveli amas detalurad warmoadgens am konteqstSi da am qar-
gaSi aqcevs mTel teqsts. Tavisufali nebisa da RvTaebrivi codnis sakiTxebi aseve
gamoxatulia gvelis TxrobaSi da momavlis pirobiT ganWvretaSi – Tumca aRniSnu-
li abstraqtuli pirobiToba SesaZloa zedmetad daemsgavsos dasavlur kategori-
ebs. CT 1130-is da BD 175-is paralelebi miuTiTebs miTis moralur wakiTxvaze, rome-
lic, rogorc Cans, mocilebulia misi bunebrivi konteqstidan. CT 1130-ic aTavisuf-
lebs Semoqmeds Teodiciisgan (SeniSvna 10). miTebi, rogorc Cans, moralurad neitra-
luria, an ambivalenturia da iSviaTad gamoxataven moralur gzavnils; aRniSnuli
moralizeba warmoadgens erT-erT faqtors, rac ganmmarteblebs afiqrebinebs, rom
es teqstebi warmoadgenen literaturul da ara samgloviaro xasiaTis mqone teq-
stebs. arc erT teqsts ar gaaCnia miTiuri moTxrobisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli forma-
luri niSan-Tviseba.
es miTiuri konteqsti sazogadoebis da samyaros farTo ìstoriuli~ sirTulis
nawils warmoadgens. sociumisa da samyaros wesrigis egvipturi koncefciebis Ziri-
Tadi simyife SeiZleba SevadaroT warmodgenas, roca yvelaferi dasruldeba, rasac
gveli aZlevs aseT cocxal saxes, maSin, roca wesrigis zogierTi maxasiaTebeli,
iseTi, rogoric aris solarul kultTan dakavSirebuli teqstebis SezRudva, para-
leluria ezoTeruli codnis aRorZinebasTan da calke ambavSia warmodgenili mzis
samocdaToTxmet formasTan erTad.
ambis bolo `miTiuri elementi~ kunZulia. aRniSnuli nawili TviTon ar warmo-
adgens miTs, Tumca, rogorc Cans, ukavSirdeba iseT koncefciebs, rogoricaa idea-
luri ealus samiwaTmoqmedo mindvrebis arseboba, rac dadasturebulia piramidis
teqstebSi da damaxasiaTebelia BD 110–is scenisTvis. Aam SedarebisaTvis konkretul
sakiTxs aq warmoadgens is faqti, rom kunZuli unda damuSavdes (47-52). ealus min-
dvrebis nebismieri aRdgenis mcdeloba dakavSirebuli unda iyos èsxatologiuri~
xasiaTis narativTan, romelic asaxavs gvelebis ganadgurebas ise, rom aranairi zo-
gadi xedva sicocxlis Semdgom cxovrebisa, an raime arsebebis Sesaxeb, ukve aRar
Cans; kunZuli aseve ar aris aRwerili, rogorc sulTa gansasvenebeli. misi realuri
arseboba moTxrobis farglebSi problematuria gvelis gancxadebebis gamo, rome-
lic ambobs, rom es aris `ka-s kunZuli~ (114) da rom mTxrobeli àrasodes ar naxavs
Aam kunZuls, romelic warmoiqmna talRebidan~ (153-4; aq Targmani utyuari ar aris).
amgvarad, egvipturi mrwamsisaTvis damaxasiaTebeli integraluri Sexeduleba si-
cocxlis Semdgom cxovrebisa, ufro miTiuria, vidre folkloruli, rac moTxroba-
Si SesaZloa gardaiqmnas fiqciur, moralur paradigmul elementad. msgavsi midgoma
mxolod literaturuli fiqciisaTvis SeiZleba iyos damaxasiaTebeli.
aseTi midgoma ar akninebs kunZulis mniSvnelobas, an asociaciebs, radgan es Se-
saZloa aseve dakavSirebuli iyos pirvelyofil gorakTan, an pirveli Sesaqmis gare-
mosTan; aRniSnuli pasaJis wakiTxva garkveulwilad kavSirSia da damokidebulia
problemur 11 153-4 xazis wakiTxvaze (ix. zemoT). ciklur xedvaSi Sdr. CT 1130. yve-
lafris sasrulis adgili SesaZloa iyos swored yvelafris dawyebis adgili, Tum-
ca kunZulis kultivireba am mosazrebis sawinaaRmdegod metyvelebs.
forma
sinuxes msgavsad, daRupuli gemis mezRvaurs gaaCnia Sida cikluri forma. am Sem-
TxvevaSi gasaTvaliswinebelia A B C D C’ B’ A’, sadac A, A’ aris šmsw-is da winam-
ZRolis qarga, B, C, C’ – misi mTxrobelis gamgzavreba da dabruneba, C, C’ – misi cxo-
112
vreba kunZulze da D – centraluri narativi kunZulisa da gvelis Sesaxeb. A, A’-Si

mTxrobels da winamZRols ukavia egviptur elitaSi maTi Cveuli roli, maSin, roca
C, C’ warmoadgens adamianis cxovrebis samoTxiseul analogias, romelSic RvTaebac
SeiZleba Segvxvdes.
bwkareduli wakiTxva intervalebs Soris, gangrZobiT formaSi, qmnis sirTule-
ebs, romelTa Soris aRsaniSnavia erTgvari winaaRmdegoba: gvelis mier yofiTi cxo-
vrebis idealis warmodgena da winaaRmdegoba B-s socialur integraciasa da warma-
tebas Soris, raSic mTxrobeli iwyebs moqmedebas, rogorc eqspediciis winamZRoli;
aq mas, rogorc winamZRols ise mimarTaven; B’-Si is iRebs jildos saxiT -saxlSi
warmatebul dabrunebas.Aamdenad, maSin, roca sinuxes mouxmoben egvipteSi, misi me-
uRle da ojaxi palestinaSi rCeba, rac winaaRmdegobriv xasiaTs atarebs; amdenad,
gvelis mokrZalebuli ideebi samoTxis kunZulis analogiasTan dakavSirebiT, er-
Tgvar Seusabamo xasiaTs iZens elitur wevrebTan integraciis da ambiciebis konteq-
stSi, maSin, roca es gamoxatulia im konteqstSi, rodesac winamZRols uxmoben eg-
vipteSi dasabruneblad. teqstis mniSvnelovani SekumSva aq ar SeiZleba, radgan ara-
feri ar metyvelebs imis Sesaxeb, rom mTxrobeli ar daubrunda sakuTar ojaxs; es
ar warmoadgens sadavo sakiTxs, aramed interesis mTavari sakiTxia. narativis Tval-
sazrisiT, aRniSnuli formati mTxrobelis ambavs ufro mWidrod akavSirebs winam-
ZRolis ambavTan, visac sWirdeba, rom sakuTari eqspedicia warudginos mefes: es
mniSvnelovani gamgzavreba da dabruneba `siuJetSi~ warmoCenilia struqturuli upi-
ratesobiT. CaZiruli gemis mezRvaurebis bedi analogiurad ar aris relevanturi
teqstis danarCen nawilTan mimarTebaSi.
aRniSnuli struqturis SedarebiT rTul nawils warmoadgens RvTaeba gvelis
Txovna naratorisadmi, rom: – `misi (gvelis) kargi saxeli (reputacia) ganavrcos
Sens (naratoris) qalaqSi~ (159-60). maSin, roca naratori brundeba egvipteSi, dabru-
nebis Semdeg aRniSnuli Txovnis Sesaxeb ukve araferia naTqvami teqstSi. es saqme
ukve gancxadebis gareSe xorcieldeba, radgan, rodesac gveli iTxovs aRniSnulis
gakeTebas, es keTdeba kidec, Tumca es cotaoden paradoqsulia, radgan arc gveli
da arc sxva romelime personaJi dasaxelebuli ar aris am dros. es anonimuroba pa-
raleluria CT 1130-isa. narativis sxva analogia dakavSirebulia RvTaeba ra-s `nam-
dvil~ saxelTan, rasa da isisis ambavSi, roca isisi RvTaebas (ras) warmatebiT gamo-
Zalavs mis namdvil saxels, Tumca sazogadoeba amas verasdros xvdeba (ix. zemoT,
SeniSvna 55). ambis umTavresi azri da misi CarTva magiur SelocvaSi daikargeboda
im SemTxvevaSi, Tu es gamoCndeboda; msgavsad amisa, Tu gveli dasaxelebuli iqnebo-
da, daikargeboda misi arsis mniSvnelovani nawili da is ucnobi (148) aRar iqneboda
xalxisTvis. ufro zogadad Tu ganvmartavT am nawils, teqstSi gamoyenebuli akrZa-
luli codna moiTxovs ufro qaragmul miniSnebebs, vide konkretul axsnas; sxvagva-
rad Tu avxsniT am movlenas, es aris farTod gavrcelebuli forma, roca miTis Ca-
rTva, integrireba xdeba egviptur teqstebSi (ix. zemoT, SeniSvna 56).
savaraudod, aRniSnuli teqsti or adgilas identurobas faravs nawilobrivi
struqturuli meqanizmebis saSualebiT. pirvel SemTxvevaSi gveli eubneba mTxro-
bels, rom `RvTaebam~ mianiWa sicocxle da miiyvana igi kunZulze (113). gamomdinare
iqidan, rom Tavad gveli aris RvTaeba da Sesabamisad mxsneladac gvevlineba, `RvTa-
eba~ SesaZloa TviTon gveli iyos; misi moxsenieba mesame pirSi warmoadgens erTgvar
SeniRbvas. Aalternatiuli xedva aris aseve is, rom `RvTaeba~ SesaZloa iyos ganzo-
gadebuli arseba, rac Cveulebrivi movlenaa darigebebis teqstebSi; im miniSnebidan
gamomdinare, rTuli iqneba imis Tqma, Tu romeli RvTaeba unda igulisxmebodes am
SemTxvevaSi. katastrofidan xsna ukavSirdeba RvTaebriv faqtors, rac am SemTxveva-
Si ar iTxovs dakonkretebas. Aam monakveTis adreuli wakiTxva ufro SemWidroebu-
113
Targmanebi
lia da, Sesabamisad, mas eniWeba upiratesoba. meore mistifikacia sruldeba iq, sa-
dac qargaSi mTxrobeli moxseniebulia pirveli piriT: `Semdeg man (winamZRolma)
miTxra me (mTxrobels)~ (183), es nawili, rogorc Cans, bundovans xdis ambis doneebs
Soris arsebul sxvaobas (zemoT mocemul sqemaSi aRniSnuli nawili aris – A’).
rTuli dasajerebelia, rom aRniSnuli detali warmoadgens Secdomas, rac dakavSi-
rebulia mesame piris nacvlad pirveli piris moxseniebasTan, radgan mesame piris
gamoyeneba aq moiTxovda Smsw-is dasaxelebas tituliT da ara nacvalsaxeliT. Ees
momenti SesaZloa miviCnioT teqstis dazianebis Sedegad gamowveul xarvezad, rac
savsebiT SesaZlebelia; amave dros aRniSnuli pasaJis interpretacia SesaZlebelia
imgvarad, rogorc is aris warmodgenili. am SemTxvevaSi adgili unda hqondes
struqturaSi damatebiTi (sagangebo) donis Camatebas ise, rom mTxrobelis ambavi mo-
icavdes Tanamosaubris pasuxs iseTi saxiT, rac ar aris gamJRavnebuli ambis dasas-
rulamde.ASesavali nawili, romelic ambis pirveli pasaJis dros Cndeba, SeiZleba,
Semdgom gamxdariyo erTaderTi elementi, rac mogvcemda neitralur safuZvels.
msgavsi struqtura SesaZloa aseve iyos fiqcia, romelsac, rogorc Cans, ciklSi
garkveuli CarTva aqvs. es detali warmoadgens kidev sxva miniSnebas imis Taobaze,
rom doneebs Soris arsebobs erTgvari mravalSrianoba.
moTxrobisTvis yvelaze damaxasiaTebeli elementi aris Txrobis pirvel pirSi
gadmocema. sxva ramodenime literaturuli narativi msgavsi saxiT aris gadmocemu-
li, Tumca es narativebi Sedarebis TvalsazrisiT ukve Sors dganan daRupuli gemis
mezRvauris ambisagan. moTxrobaSi pirveli piris nawilobriv gamokveTili saxe da
amave dros mniSvnelovani xasiaTis mqone mesame piris qarga, mcired efeqts axdens
auditoriaze, Tumca aRniSnuli momenti SesaZlebelia yofiliyo gansxvavebuli im
SemTxvevaSi, Tu teqsti wamoadgenda ciklis nawils, romelic, rogorc Cans, Sedge-
boda pirveli piriT gadmocemuli moTxrobebisgan. Ppirveli piris saxis warmoCena
ar aris damaxasiaTebeli norma narativisaTvis, miTebis, an folkloruli ambebisaT-
vis. Aamgvarad, am formis literaturuli gamoyeneba warmoadgens erTgvar ironizi-
rebul variants da amave dros rwmenis sakiTxebs erTgvari eWvis qveS ayenebs. sazo-
gadod, es momenti SesaZloa Seexos Sua egviptur sxva moTxrobebsac, magaliTad,
`mwyemsis ambavSi~, sadac adamiani xvdeba RvTaebas (ix. zemoT, SeniSvna 6). aq litera-
turuli paradoqsia pirveli piris (mxolobiTi da mravlobiTi) gansakuTrebuli aq-
centireba, radgan teqsti Seicavs ara literaturul, aramed jadoqrul Selocvas.
sxva analogi pirveli piris garSemo warmodgenilia RvTaebis sityvaSi, an are-
talogiaSi. es momenti sagulisxmoa, radganac orive SemTxvevaSi aRniSnuli formebi
Cndeba metad specifikuri xasiaTis literaturul teqstebSi, rogoricaa, magali-
Tad, darigebani. amdenad, Tematurad Sesabamisi CT 1130 swored msgavs sityvas war-
moadgens. Ggvelis moTxroba SesaZloa SevadaroT am ukanasknels – CT 1130, romlis-
ganac igi gansxvavdeba imiT, rom Temas warmoadgens konkretuli, komentarebis gare-
Se gakeTebuli formiT, maSin, roca Selocva xasiaTdeba Txrobis maxasiaTeblebiT
da gaaCnia rogorc didaqtikuri, aseve Tematuri wyoba.
amdenad, pirveli piris CarTva kontrastebs iwvevs teqstis ZiriTad struqturas-
Tan mimarTebaSi; TvalsaCinos xdis, rom is, rac SesaZloa miiCneoda folklorul
moTxrobad (teqsti ar unda avurioT miTis `namdvil~ TxrobaSi), sinamdvileSi sul
sxva rames warmoadgens, maSinac ki, roca is gvTavazobs gvelis mTavar sityvas, ro-
melic gansakuTrebulia da seriozuli, mainc xelovnuria, da RvTaebrivi sityvis
saxea. amave dros, piradobis momenti axdens umniSvnelo gavlenas imaze, Tu rogor
aris mTxrobeli warmodgenili, rac adgils uTmobs ironiasa da gaurkvevlobas,
rac, bunebrivia, cxadi iqneboda msmenelisaTvis. arsebuli kontrastis CarTva, rac
axasiaTebs mraval moTxrobas, gamoixateba SemdegSi: Tu ramdenad sandoa naratori
114
da ramdenad Seesabameba sinamdviles Cveneba, romelsac iZleva naratori pirvel pi-

riSi SemaZrwunebeli gamocdilebis Sesaxeb.
pirveli piris forma ar gamoiyeneba farTo ganzomilebaSi, xasiaTis gamokveTis
TvalsazrisiT (ix. zemoT, SeniSvna 59). misi potenciali dasawyisSi aSkara xasiaTs
atarebs, aq mdumare `Tanamosaubre~ kontrastulia sityvamraval mTxrobelTan, anu
naratorTan mimarTebaSi. mogvianebiT, mTxrobeli TandaTanobiT aRmoaCens, rom am-
bavs dazustebiT ar ganacxadebs; rom kunZuli ar aris aTvisebuli da damuSavebuli
(47-52); rom kunZuli ufro metad ganekuTvneba kulturis sferos da ara bunebis na-
wils, magram, amave dros, kunZuli iwvevs samoTxis asociacias. aRniSnuli arakomen-
tirebuli gancxadeba ufro efeqtur xasiaTs atarebs pirveli piris Txrobis dros,
romelic Zalze moklea da lakoniuri.
didaqtikuri aspeqtebi da struqturuli motivi

braiani diskusiebSi yuradRebas amaxvilebs naratoris xasiaTze; avtori mis xa-
siaTs darigebebis teqstebSi mocemul qcevis idealur normebTan akavSirebs, ro-
melTa umravlesobas naratoris qmedebani ewinaaRmdegeba. braianis paralelebi, eg-
vipturi literaturuli frazeologiis homogenurobis Cvenebis TvalsazrisiT, mar-
Tebulia, Tumca misi daskvnebi problemur xasiaTs atarebs, radgan naratoris-
/mTxrobelis kategoriis Sedareba darigebebis teqstebis formalizebur socialur
konteqstTan ar SeiZleba, radganac folkloruli analogia ewinaaRmdegeba frazeo-
logiis gamoyenebas sakuTari Tavis warmoCenis TvalsazrisiT. amgvarad, es analogia
ar Seesabameba didaqtikur teqsts. Ggansxvaveba iCens Tavs qargasa da moTxrobas So-
ris. qargaSi frazeologia SesaZloa kargad Seesabamebodes mis miznobriv, Tvalsa-
Cino miznebs. mxolod ramdenime pirveli winadadeba (1-11) gamoiyureba gansxvavebu-
lad samefo da arasamefo warwerebisagan, romlebic mogviTxroben ucxoeTSi ganxo-
rcielebuli laSqrobebis ambebis Sesaxeb da am gziT iqmneba Sesaferisi konteqsti
moTxrobis danarCen nawilTan mimarTebaSi. amas mosdevs pirdapiri moralizebis sa-
kiTxi, romelic winamZRols exeba, rac ukve qmnis erTgvar motivaciis safuZvels
specifikuri ambis gadmocemaSi (12-19). aRniSnuli momenti moicavs axlo paralelebs
da kontrastebs moralisa da naratoris qmedebebs Soris, Tumca opoziciis arsebi-
Toba Zevs mis konteqstSi, mis relativizaciasa da mobilizaciaSi, rac moTxrobas
axasiaTebs zogadad da ara ise, rom TviTon mTxrobelis qmedebebs gaukeTdes Sefa-
sebebi. amis sawinaaRmdegod, gvelis moraluri aspeqtebi (132-4) gadmocemulia didaq-
tikuri teqstebis msgavsi frazeologiiT da im frazebis epiTetebiT, romlebic
gvxvdeba biografiebSi, Tumca egzotikur garemoSi es unda xasiaTdebodes gansxvave-
bulad, arsebuli Cveuli sentimentebisagan, rac, Tavis mxriv, moklebulia raime Ri-
rebulebas: am faseulobebis sistemas gaaCnia gasaocari xasiaTi, gamomdinare maTi
paradoqsuli CarTvebidan. Mmxolod mTlian teqstTan faseulobaTa am sistemis er-
Tiani integraciiT xerxdeba maTi ganzogadeba; amdenad, rTulia msjeloba imis Tao-
baze, Tu zogadad es CarTvebi ras gulisxmobs moTxrobaSi.
mTxrobelis mier sakuTari Tavis uadgilo wardgena gvelis winaSe SesaZloa
atarebdes rogorc ironiul, aseve didaqtikur xasiaTs. Mnaratoris sawyisi mowode-
ba mefis winaSe qcevebis Sesaxeb Seesabameba mis Sexedulebas, Tumca misi gvelTan
moqmedeba TiTqmis bolomde winaaRmdegobaSi modis mis sakuTar rekomendaciebTan.
miuxedavad amisa, is iRebs pasuxs, rac gacilebiT rTulia, vidre sinuxes analogiu-
ri daZabuli mdgomareoba mefis winaSe (B 252-6). am ironiis `wakiTxva~ warmoaCens si-
tuacias: miuxedavad misiis warumatebeli dasasrulis da rTul situaciaSi uniaTo,
ugergilo qmedebisa, viRacas mainc SeuZlia dabrundes da `miaRwios qveyanas~ warma-
tebulad; bolo nawilSi gaCenili miTiTeba `Semomxede me~ am ideas amyarebs. waruma-
115
Targmanebi
tebloba, rogorc aseTi, ar aris gacxadebuli mravali sityviT, magram amis gageba
savsebiT SeeZlo winamZRolis, an damswre sazogadoebas. Aam monakveTis wakiTxva mi-
uTiTebs imaze, rom Cndeba orgvari ironia, mimarTuli mTxrobelis TviTcnobierisa
da aseve auditoriis mimarT. amgvari interpretaciidan gamomdinare, teqsti `gvaswav-
lis~ da, amave dros, misi literaturuli qarga relativizebulia sxvadasxva gziT.
`swavlebas~ ufro metad teqstis Sida nawili EeTmoba, is ar atarebs ganzogadebul
xasiaTs da aRniSnuli ar unda iyos danaxuli, rogorc pirveladi didaqtikuri
TvalsazrisiT warmodgenili nawili.
arsebobs agreTve sxva midgomac, sadac aSkaraa, rom moralurma, an didaqtikur-
ma Segonebebma SesaZloa Seqmnas erTgvari organizebuli principi, sadac yvelafers
ar aqvs mxolod didaqtikuri saxe. Tu teqstis literaturul principebs Sevaja-
mebT, SeiZleba iTqvas, rom es aris ambavi konfrontaciaze, gamocdilebis miRebaze
da am gamocdilebidan saTanado daskvnebis gamotanaze; agreTve, am gamocdilebidan
miRebuli codnis ukve sxvaTaTvis gaziarebis Sesaxeb, magram ise, rom amas hqondes
garkveuli Rirebuleba. terminebis verbaluri asociaciebi miuTiTebs aRniSnuli ga-
mocdilebis `gemoze~, simwareze, an piriqiT. Aamis Semdgom modis aseve saboloo Se-
goneba, romelSic amgvar gamocdilebas aqvs erTgvari mniSvneloba, mivyavarT sik-
vdilamde da momdevno pasaJi – romelic ukavSirdeba Semdgom cxovrebas; amgvarad,
gvelis moralizeba exeba da qmnis kosmiurad transidentalur princips, romelic
amave dros Seesatyviseba umartives da sazogado WeSmaritebas. sabolood, farisev-
luri aRtyineba da warmoCenili optimizmi, riTac mTxrobeli warmoadgens mis miR-
wevas `sasurvel qveynamde~, Tavad erTi fraziT aris gauferulebuli; kvdoma, ras-
Tan mimarTebaSic aRniSnuli eufemizmia, rac yovelTvis ambivalenturia, yovelgvari
imedebis arsebobis miuxedavad. aq sikvdili SesaZloa ar iyos MmTavari miniSneba,
aramed iyos asociacia.
yuradRebis erTgvari gamaxvileba uaryofiT gamocdilebaze agreTve CarTulia
naratoris mier ambebis TxrobaSi, winamZRolis saboloo komentarSi. mTxrobeli
iwyebs moyolas, rom eqspedicia, saidanac isini brundebian – warmatebulia, sul
mcire im TvalsazrisiT, rom egvipteSi dabrunebisas ar ganicades raime ziani, Tum-
ca, Semdgom aRniSnavs, rom mizani ver iqna miRweuli. miuxedavad imisa, Tu rogor
iqneba gagebuli winamZRolis pasuxi, mas ar sjera, rom eqspedicia warmatebuli iyo.
amgvarad, `pesimizmi~, kurTis azriT, saWiroebs erTgvar ganmartebas, rogorc ganmas-
xvavebeli maxasiaTebli, romelic warmoadgens teqstis organizaciisa da Temis ga-
nuyofel nawils. SesaZloa, rom iyos ironia imaSi, rom winamZRoli optimizmiT ar
ekideba am gamocdilebas, rac gadaiqceva pozitiuri efeqtis mqone faqtad, magram is
SesaZloa exebodes katastrofas, romelic unda moxdes. rogorc `mxilveli~, igi Se-
saZloa ukavSirdebodes farTo auditorias, Tumca ar aRniSnavs, rom misi Sexedu-
leba SesaZloa mTlianad iqnes gaziarebuli. misi pasuxi SesaZloa aseve SevadaroT
moTxrobebs, sadac adamiani mis ba-sTan saubrobs, sadac gadmocemulia arapirdapiri
saxiT uimedobis ilustracia. Tuki winamZRoli Cavidoda mefesTan, albaT, mas yve-
laferi epatieboda, Tumca situaciis mniSvnelovan sakiTxs warmoadgens is, rom igi
mefesTan ar Casula da, amgvarad, es nawili Riaa sxvadasxva alternativisTvis.Mwi-
namZRolis usiamovno cxovrebiseul gamocdilebas paralelebi aqvs gvelis katas-
trofasTan mimarTebaSi, sanam es gamocdileba gadaiqceva codnad, romelic gvaswav-
lis, da am gziT es kvlav mobilizdeba ezoTerul codnad, razec dafuZnebulia
gvelis ZiriTadi ambavi.
gamocdilebis moraluri mxare aris warmodgenili arsebiT nawilad SesavalSi,
gvelis mier sakuTari ambis warmodgenisas da mis daskvniT nawilSi. aRniSnuls ga-
aCnia Rrma datvirTva moTxrobis motivaciaSi sxva mravali maxasiaTeblebis darad,
116
garda sakuTriv `moraluri~ mniSvnelobisa, romelic mas zogadad SesaZloa hqon-

des. ar aris aucilebeli, rom Ggamocdilebis aRniSnuli organizebuli principi
atarebdes didaqtikur xasiaTs; aRniSnuls SesaZloa hqondes ufro farTo esTeturi
da literaturuli mniSvneloba. mraval literaturul naSroms, farTo moculobis
nawarmoebebis CaTvliT, xSirad gaaCnia erTgvarad organizebuli Temebi, iseTi, ro-
goricaa, magaliTad, ambicia, SurisZieba, an bediswera, Tumca es ar niSnavs imas,
rom es maT amcrobs moraluri gancxadebebis donemde.
argumentebis rigi afarToebs interpretaciis principebs, Tumca SesaZloa iyos
sasargeblo egvipturi naSromebis sxva literaturul tipebTan Sedarebisas. aseve,
teqstis komentarebi sakuTar Tavze Txrobisas amZafrebs gamocdilebis Temis arse-
biTobas. aRniSnuli ar unda iyos danaxuli, rogorc absoluturi orientiri, ara-
med konteqsturad mniSvnelovan orientirad ganixileba. `mogzauris~ SemTxvevaSi ga-
mocdileba, da Tu rogor aris es gamocdileba gamoyenebuli, warmoadgens gadamw-
yvet, arsebiT moments saboloo bedisweramde. erTgvari asociaciiT, aRniSnuli mog-
zauroba SesaZlebelia iyos Tavad cxovrebis mogzauroba, Tumca teqstis mniSvne-
loba ar mcirdeba am donemde, ufro metic, es SesaZloa warmoadgendes erTgvar ab-
strahirebas da migvaniSnebdes imaze, rom moTxroba elitarul garemos exeba da am
garemos frazeologiiT aris Seqmnili (SeniSvna 11).
daskvna
aRniSnuli gamocdilebis Tematizacia unda iyos dakavSirebuli ambis sxva aspeq-
tebTan. daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambavi garkveulwilad gansxvavdeba sinuxes
msgavsi teqstisagan, romlis biografiuli struqtura ewinaaRmdegeba imas, rom igi
Sejamdes erTi Temis FfarglebSi. Ggamocdilebis idea, romelic SeiZleba CaiTva-
los zebunebrivi qveteqstis gareSe arsebul naSromad, SeiZleba Seusabamod iyos
ganTavsebuli gvelis ezoTerul moTxrobasTan, radganac gvelis mier asaxuli mo-
rali ar aris kargad warmoCenili; Tumca aRniSnuli nawilebis Seusabamoba da ara-
Tanmimdevroba unda iyos gamoyenebuli arasaTanado gamaerTianebeli argumentebis
SeerTebiT. teqsti mravalferovania, Tumca gansxvavebulia sinuxes ambisgan. misi
struqtura agebulia adamianur gamocdilebasa da kosmosur movlenaze, an miTzea
dafuZnebuli. miTis sruli gamoyeneba teqstSi, romelic ar asaxavs miTs, metad uc-
xoa Tanamedrove literaturuli tradiciebisaTvis. Semdgomi aspeqti, rac ase Tval-
saCinoa, aris formatis garkveul doneze organizeba da struqturireba, ambis ambav-
Si moTavseba. es nawilobriv esTeturia da miuTiTebs formasTan kavSirze, Tumca
SesaZloa agreTve gamomdinareobdes folkloruli analogidan, romelic inarCunebs
ambis Txrobis tradicias.
daRupuli gemis mezRvauris ambis sruli interpretacia SeuZlebelia erTi ro-
melime martivi strategiiT, an romelime calkeuli interpretaciuli mignebiT. me
gamoviyene sxvadasxva midgoma da miWirs imaze pasuxis gacema, ratom aris es Sesaba-
misobaSi moyvanili calkeul SemTxvevaSi. narativis TvalsazrisiT, teqsti faravs
iseT mravalferovan movlenebs, droisa da sivrceebis iseT manZilebs, rom mosa-
lodnelia bolo nawili yovelivesi iyos dakarguli – konkretulad mcire zomis
teqstis sazRvrebSi; aq Cndeba fantastikuri momentebi, romlis bolo nawili aris
xSirad sityvaZunwi. teqstis arsi SesaZloa iyos martivi xasiaTis, Tumca misi mniS-
vneloba ar emorCilebodes analizs zogadi TvalsazrisiT. SeiZleba es moTxroba
Seiqmna im mizniT, raTa zedapiruli ambebi gaerTianebuliyo erT mTlian struqtu-
raSi.
am yvelafris erTi gamaerTianebeli motivia is, Tu adamiani rogor iyenebs Tavis
gamocdilebas cxovrebaSi, rac ezoTerul aspeqtebTan ar aris axlo mimarTebaSi;
117
Targmanebi
Tumca isini, vinc Caxedulni iyvnen sakraluri codnis sakiTxebSi, SesaZloa, am mo-
sazrebasTan mimarTebaSi ar dagvTanxmebodnen. gamocdilebis gakveTilsa da ezoTe-
rul codnas Soris SesaZloa yofiliyo garkveuli Seusabamoba da daZabuloba, ra-
zec teqsti migvaniSnebs, magram es SeiZleboda warmatebiT miRweuliyo gamonaklisis
saxiT yovelgvari emociebis gareSe.
teqstis zedapiruli sqemis miuxedavad, narativi mdidaria qaragmebiT da asocia-
ciebiT, romelTa ZiriTadi nawili dakarguli unda iyos Tanamedrove mkiTxvelisaT-
vis, axali elementebis identifikaciam ki, SesaZloa, Secvalos wakiTxvebi; me ar
vcdilob zedmiwevniT sakiTxis wvdomas, an teqstis zust kiTxvas, Tumca aRniSnuli
qaragmebis aSkara sixSire nawilobriv SesaZloa warmoadgendes ambis saintereso as-
peqts, romelic uCveulo kulturuli artefaqtia da ara teqstis nawili, ase rom,
es maxasiaTebli rTuli asaxsnelia.
Cems strategias warmoadgenda teqstis interpretacia misi literaturuli xasia-
Tis TvalsazrisiT, rac xazs usvams qargis mniSvnelobas da afasebs formas avto-
risa da auditoriis TvalsazrisiT; aseve vikvlevdi zepiri da literaturuli do-
neebis urTierTkavSirebs. literaturuli Ziebis TvalsazrisiT, Cemi midgoma SesaZ-
loa scdebodes imas, rac uZvelesma auditoriam gaakeTa; aseve SesaZlebelia, rom
warmatebiT ar ganxorcielda Cemi Zieba bevri sxva mimarTulebiT. msgavsi Tamami na-
bijebi warmoadgens literaturuli interpretaciis Semadgenel nawils da naSroms
analizis sayovelTaod aRiarebuli modelebis sistemaSi aqcevs. msgavsi nawarmoebis
arsis aRdgena mxolod erTgvari riskebis gawevis safasurad miiRweva. daRupuli ge-
mis mezRvauris ambavi ki jildos, riskis da gamocdilebis Sesaxebaa.
avtorisa da mTargmnelis komentarebi

komentari 1: eqskluziuri da ezoTeruli sibrZne – eqskluziuri sibrZne ezoTe-
ruli sibrZnis saxea; sibrZne, romelic gacxadebulia mxolod adamianTa garkveuli
jgufisaTvis, vinc ganvlo erTgvari iniciacia da eziara dafarul, rCeulTaTvis mi-
sawvdom codnas, sakralur codnas.
komentari 2: Ddacilebulia kulturuli garemosa da drois TvalsazrisiT.
komentari 3: miuxedavad imisa, rom teqsti eyrdnoba zepir tips, imeorebs fra-
zebs da narativis nawilebs da a.S., aseve folklorul motivebs. es warmodgenilia
werilobiTi nawarmoebis formatSi erTgvarad gamiznuli saxiT.
komentari 4: saqme gvaqvs narativis formulasTan, magaliTad: `mravali dRis Sem-
deg es moxda,~ rasac naklebad iyenebs Cven mier ganxiluli teqsti.
komentari 5: moTxroba werilobiTi formiT arsebobs, Tumca baZavs zepiri tra-
diciisaTvis damaxasiaTebel niSnebs; manuskripti, romelic Cven gvaqvs, Seicavs Sec-
domebs, romlebic gaCnda erTi manuskriptidan sxvadasxva manuskriptze gadaweris
procesSi da ara imitom, rom zepiri tradiciis Caweris procesSi gaipara Secdome-
bi. amdenad, naTelia, rom Secdomebi momdinareobs gadaweris procesidan.
komentari 6: miZRvniTi formulis proTazisi – es aris gramatikuli termini da
niSnavs `Tu~, romelic pirobiTi winadadebis frazaSi gvxvdeba.
komentari 7: winamZRoli aris adamiani, visac naratori mimarTavs. is aris daty-
vevebuli, radganac naratori ganuwyvetliv saubrobs da ar aZlevs mas SesaZleblo-
bas, rom raime Tqvas mTeli teqstis manZilze, garda bolo winadadebisa.
komentari 8: dekorumis gavrceleba – dekorumi aris koncefciebis erToblioba,
romelic, erTi mxriv, ukavSirdeba cxovrebiseul qmedebis normebs, xolo, meore
mxriv, xelovnebaSi (saxviTi xelovneba, literatura) arsebul motivebs, romlebic
SezRudulia specifikur konteqstSi specifikuri simbolizmis gamoyenebiT.
118
komentari 9: teqstis am nawilSi saubaria imaze, rom mezRvaurs aviwydeba is, rom
igi iyo winamZRoli da rom eqspediciis yvela wevri daiRupa. is mouTmenlad elo-
deba saxlSi dabrunebas. es misTvis, rogorc individisaTvis, aris mTavari am momen-
tSi.
komentari 10: Teodicia gvxvdeba bibliur konteqstSi; es ganmartavs imas, rom
Semoqmedi, romelic keTilia, miuxedavad amisa, Tanaarsebobs borotebasTan erTad
samyaroSi. farTo gagebiT niSnavs imas, Tu ratom arsebobs boroteba sikeTesTan er-
Tad.
komentari 11: teqsti zog adgilas xSirad Zalzed mokledaa warmodgenili da
erTgvarad gaugebaria. Ees momenti sulac ar niSnavs imas, rom aRniSnuli sakiTxi
sazogadod aris cnobili da universalur codnis xasiaTs atarebs da amitomac ar
moiTxovs dakonkretebas; piriqiT, am periodSi mxolod adamianebis mcire jgufs Se-
eZlo emogzaura da gadaadgilebuliyo erTi adgilidan meoreze. amdenad, teqstis
konteqsti elituria: darigebebi, morali da sakraluri sibrZne swored elituri
garemosTvis aris gankuTvnili. amdenad, teqsti eyrdnoba folklorul qargas, Tum-
ca igi mravalSriania Tematurad da scildebaUuSualod folklorul moTxrobas.
teqstSi miTiTebuli naSromebis abreviatura

BD Book of the Dead
BSEG Bulletin (Société d’Egyptologie de Genève)
CdE Chronique d’Egypte
CT The Egyptian Coffin Texts, ed. A. de Buck
GM Göttinger Miszellen, Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
LÄ Lexikon der Ägyptologie
SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur
Sarapis Sarapis
Wb. Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, eds A. Erman and H. Grapow
WdO Die Welt des Orients
ZÄS Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
Urk Urkunden des Ägyptischen Altertums
statiis avtoris boloTqma, 2010 weli

mas Semdeg, rac Cemi statia gamoica 1990 wels, me aRar davbrunebivar daRupuli
gemis mezRvauris ambavs, mxolod ramdenimejer Sevexe am nawarmoebs ‘Myth and Litera-
ture’-is TavSi, romlis redaqtoria A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms
(Leiden, 1996), 361–77. bevri axali naSromi, romelic ukavSirdeboda da exeboda am moTx-
robas, gamoqveynda am periodSi. 1991 wels gamoqveynda a. loprienos statia –The Sign
of Literature in the Shipwrecked Sailor. aRniSnuli statia daibeWda krebulSi – U. Verhoeven
and E. Graefe (eds), Religion und Philosophie im alten Ägypten: Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag am 24. Juli 1991 (Leuven, 1991), 209–18 gv., sadac avtori damoukideblad ikvlevs
Txzulebas da teqsts gansxvavebuli kuTxiT udgeba.
teqsti seriozuli Targmania inglisur enaze, romelic misdevs originalis met-
rikul struqturas, ekuTvnis r.b. parkinsons, ix. The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyp-
119
Targmanebi
tian Poems, 1940–1640 BC (Oxford, 1997), 89–101. am avtors ekuTvnis – Poetry and Culture in Mid-
dle Kingdom Egypt: a Dark Side to Perfection (London, 2002), sadac igi teqstis analizis kval-
dakval, mis Sedarebas axdens xeofsis sasaxlis karis moTxrobebTan, Sdr. Ggv. 182–
92 da aseve ixileT bibliografia teqstTan kavSirSi, gv. 298–9.
g. moirsis naSromi – Fingierte Welten in der ägyptischen Literatur des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.:
Grenzüberschreitung, Reisemotiv und Fiktionalität (Leiden, 2001) – ZiriTadad fokusirebulia mog-
zaurobis Temaze da mogzaurobis mowyobis sakiTxebTan mimarTebaSi bevr saintere-
so problemas ganixilavs. meore SesaniSnavi Targmani v.k. simpsons ekuTvnis, rome-
lic gamoica W. K. Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt (3rd ed., New Haven, 2003), 45–53 da
Tan axlavs vrceli bibliografia 584–7 gverdebze.
j. m. galani Tavis naSromSi – Four Journeys in Ancient Egyptian Literature (Göttingen, 2005) –
gvTavazobs erTdroulad teqstis kvlevas da mis Targmansac. es aris inglisuri ga-
mocema espanuri wignisa – Cuatro viajes en la literatura del antiguo Egipto (Madrid, 1998). eseebis
uaxlesi koleqcia egviptur narativze gaxlavT: H. Roeder (ed.), Das Erzählen in frühen
Hochkulturen: der Fall Ägypten (Munich, 2009), romelSic ramdenime Tavi exeba daRupuli ge-
mis mezRvauris ambavs.
120
avtorebi
malxaz macaberiZe – politikis mecnierebaTa doqtori, profesori, iv. javaxiSvilis

saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti
qeTevan kakitelaSvili – asocirebuli profesori, kulturis mecnierebebi, iv. java-
xiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti
zaur gasimovi – evropuli istoriis institutis msoflio istoriis ganyofilebis
mecnier TanamSromeli, mainci, germania
maia qvriviSvili – asocirebuli profesori, kulturis mecnierebebi, iv. javaxiSvi-
lis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti
rifsime ramaziani – profesori, v. briusovis saxelobis erevnis saxelmwifo lin-
gvisturi universiteti, somxeTi
sona avetisiani – v. briusovis saxelobis erevnis saxelmwifo lingvisturi univer-
siteti, somxeTi
daviT macaberiZe – centraluri evropis universitetis doqtoranti, budapeSti, ung-
reTi; asistent-profesori, socialur da politikur mecnierebaTa
fakulteti, iv. javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo unive-
rsiteti
sergei rumiancevi – sociologiis mecnierebaTa kandidati, azerbaijanis mecniereba-
Ta erovnuli akademiis filosofiis, sociologiis da samarTlis in-
stitutis mecnier TanamSromeli
irakli CxaiZe – doqtoranti, kulturis mecnierebaTa instituti, ivane javaxiSvilis
marina andrazaSvili – asocirebuli profesori, evropuli enebis da literaturis
instituti, germanuli filologiis departamenti, ivane javaxiSvi-
lis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti
nino daraselia – asocirebuli profesori, evropuli enebis da literaturis in-
stituti, inglisuri filologiis departamenti, ivane javaxiSvilis
nino qimeriZe, asocirebuli profesori, evropuli enebis da literaturis institu-
ti, germanuli filologiis departamenti, ivane javaxiSvilis saxe-
lobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti
Targmanebi
jon beinsi – egviptologiis profesori, oqsfordis universiteti, mkvlevari, quins

koleji
eka avaliani – profesori, iv. javaxiSvilis saxelobis Tbilisis saxelmwifo uni-
versiteti
121
AUTHORS
Malkhaz Matsaberidze, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Ketevan Kakitelashvili, Associate Professor, Institute of Culture Studies, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State Uni-
versity
Zaur Gasimov, Research Fellow at the Department of World History, Institute of European History, Mainz
Maia Kvrivishvili, Associate Professor, Institute of Culture Studies, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Hripsime Ramazyan, Professor, Yerevan State Linguistic University after V.Brusov, Armenia
Sona Avetisyan, Yerevan State Linguistic University after V.Brusov, Armenia
David Matsaberidze, PhD Student, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary; Assistant Professor,
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Iv.Javakishvili Tbilisi State University
Sergei Rumiantsev, Candidate of the Sociological Sciences, Research Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy,
sociology and Law at the National Academy of Sciences, Azerbaijan
Irakli Chkhaidze, PhD Student, Institute of Cultural Studies, Iv.Javakishvili Tbilisi State University
Marina Andrazashvili, Assosiate Professor, Institute of European Languages and Literature, Department of
German Philology, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Nino Daraselia, Assosiate Professor, Institute of European Languages and Literature, Department of English
Philology, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Nino Kimeridze, Assosiate Professor, Institute of European Languages and Literature, Department of German
Philology, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Translation
John Baines, Professor of Egyptology, University of Oxford, Fellow of the Queen’s College
Eka Avaliani, Professor, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
122
gamomcemlobis redaqtorebi: marine varamaSvili
nana kaWabava
komp. uzrunvelyofa lali kurdRelaSvili
0179 Tbilisi, i. WavWavaZis gamziri 14

14 Ilia Chavchavadze Avenue, Tbilisi 0179
Tel 995(32)251432
www.press.tsu.ge

7 Civilizacia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 Civilizacia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 Civilizacia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ivane javaxiSvilis sax.

Tbilisis saxelmwifo universiteti

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs - Twinning networks and

© Tbilisis universitetis gamomcemloba, 2009

nino Ciqovani, profesori kulturis kvlevebi, iv. javaxiSvilis saxelobis

saredaqcio jgufi: malxaz Toria

Jurnalis internetversia da sxva informacia interkulturuli dialogis iuneskos

Nino Chikovani, Cultural Studies, Iv.Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Geor-

EDITORIAL GROUP: Irakli Chkhaidze

ADDRESS OF EDITORIAL OFFICE

UNESCO Chair in Intercultural Dialogue, Tbilisi State University

saqarTvelos 1921 wlis konstituciis SemuSaveba da

1918 wlis 26 maiss saqarTvelom gaakeTa istoriuli arCevani – aeSenebina damou-

aris socialisturi mTavroba, es aris saqarTveloSi da es garemoeba avalebs mTav-

2. erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis Tavdapirveli monaxazi

3. sakonstitucio komisiis sxdomebi erovnul umciresobaTa

proeqtebi waradgines muslimebma (e.i. azerbaijanelebma), Tbilisis ebraelebma, `bun-

4. erovnuli sabWoebis mier sakonstitucio komisiaSi wardgenili proeqtebi

erovnuli sabWos mier warmodgenili samxreT oseTis kantonis konstituciis proeq-

bis moqalaqeTa mier arCeuli erovnuli kreba da misi aRmasrulebeli organo _

bis saqmeebi. mazrebSi gaTvaliswinebuli iyo specialuri Statebi aRniSnuli saqmee-

5. erovnul umciresobaTa uflebebis gansazRvra

Tavis formulirebas icavda p. sayvareliZec, romelmac aRniSna, rom `konstitu-

da, saerTod, kulturul saqmeebisaTvis. saxelmwifo maT daexmareba. 2. maTi erov-

ELABORATION OF THE 1921 CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA AND

INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF HISTORY AND HISTORY

Hripsime Ramazyan, Sona Avetisyan

THE GLOBALIZING WORLD: A DIAGRAM OF NEW IDENTITIES

Globalization: the main conceptual approaches

Globalization: risks and contradictions

The transformation of identity in the changing world

ПОЛЬСКИЙ ПРОМЕТЕИЗМ КАК ПРЕДМЕТ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ.

Прометеизм (prometeizm) является одной из важнейших идейных концепций, возникших в Польше

Mamoulia, G. L’histoire du groupe Caucase (1934-1939), Cahiers du monde russe 48-2007/1

identifikaciis procesebi da markerebi eri-saxelmwifoebis

identobis problema Tanamedroveobis saintereso da aqtualur sakiTxTa ricxvs

identifikacia SeiZleba iyos realuri an warmosaxviTi, kognitiuri Tu afeqtu-

adgilisa da rolis Ziebis sakiTxi. sazogadoebriv asparezze gamovidnen aristokra-

amrigad, identobis ZiriTadi markerebi, romelTa irgvlivac gaerTianeba moxda,

PROCESSES AND MARKERS OF IDENTIFICATION IN THE ERA OF FORMATION OF

THE SOVIET IDENTITY – TRANSNATIONALISM AND

Introduction: Research Problem/Hypotheses

Theoretical Framework: Elite Manipulation

Soviet Identity: Idea and Practice

Building Common Soviet Identity

Promoting Local Ethnic Identities

After the Soviet Union

ДИАСПОРА, КАК ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ПРОЕКТ:ПРАКТИКИ И

Азербайджанцы в Германии и России: Бюрократизация социальных сетей

Конструирование бюрократической соподчиненной организационной структуры диаспоры в Рос-

Цели диаспоральной политики

солидарное сообщество (этно-национальную диаспору), неизменно лояльное конструкту идеальной

DIASPORA AS A POLITICAL PROJECT: PRACTICES AND PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION

GEORGIAN NATIONAL PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF ETHNIC AND CIVIC

Brubaker, Rogers. Ethnicity Without Groups. Harvard University Press, 2006

TRADITION DISMANTLING: A POST-TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY

Introduction: Old People, New Armenia

Challenging Male Domination