It is mentioned in the Georgian historiography that Georgian mountainous parts functioned autonomously in the unified Georgian feudal state system. This particular opinion of the Acad. G. Melikishvili, shared by the most researchers, makes it clear that it refers to Svaneti. This opinion does not spread to Thkheniskali Gorge (or Lower) Svaneti (administrative Lentekhi region) and half of Enguri Gorge (or Upper) Svaneti (so called Below Bali Svaneti) where the feudal relations were maintained until the last period (XIX century). Autonomous functioning of the upper part of Enguri Gorge Svaneti (so called Above Bali Svaneti) was considered since the late middle centuries because the free tribal unions revived there since the period of demolition of the Georgian central state and some representatives of the upper class with noble name (“Vargi”) bore the title only formally.

However, this historical-ethnographical part of Georgia has not been studied yet in full despite the fact that several researches were written in the XIX-XX centuries on Svaneti, its history and ethnography, customs and traditions. First of all, researches made by non-Georgian authors in the XIX century is characterized by carelessness, without going into the depth, frequently with non-objectiveness and inclinations. As for the researches done since the 80s of the XX century, most of them are in the certain frame and are written under the influence of Marxism-Leninism dogmas. For example, having been within the certain frames, ethnographers had to prove the social events of primitive society in their ethnographical materials on Svaneti and see the forms of remnants of the first tribal society. Although above mentioned does not mean at all that these works do not include essential scientific researches.

Otherwise, there is a big and obvious mismatch which reasonably causes the doubt that we have the proper understanding of the certain essential side in the life of Svaneti.

On one hand, the remnants of the farming and spiritual culture of Svaneti, such as the world known “myth” about the wealth of Svaneti (“Colkheti”), about its farming-metallurgical achievements the proof of which is the archeological finds with high performance. Agricultural rules (cultivation and cattle-breeding), amazing princepieces of wood crafts, highly developed civic and cult buildings of stone crafts, blacksmith’s work of farming and combat arms and goldsmith’s work of jewelry, highly developed painting. and on the other hand, our superficial knowledge in the cultural backwardness of Svan people and their closed farming system, their “primitiveness”. You can agree that to leave this issue in such a state for the Soviet scientists is unforgivable and its proper improvement is the matter of dignity of Georgian scientific historiography” (N. Berdzenishviki, The Issues of Georgian History, V, Tbilisi, 1971, p. 67). At the same time, the scientist also pointed that the scientific study of Svaneti should have been done not separately but in close ties with neighbouring parts (Racha, Lechkhumi, Samegrelo, Abkhazia) (p. 70). As is seen, the scientist named the mentioned parts, first of all not only because that they are bordering Svaneti but Svans were historically settled even there. Besides, the history of Georgia, its ethnographical being represents the close historical-ethnographic relationship between the highland and lowland and Svaneti needs to be seen and studied in this view.

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:06 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Svaneti is one of the highest mountainous territorial-ethnographic units. It is situated in the mountainous part of the west Georgia, to the south slopes of the Caucasus Range. In the historical-geographical view, Svaneti is divided into two parts: Tkhenistskali Gorge Svaneti and Enguri Gorge Svaneti. In other words, the former is called Lower Svaneti and includes Lentekhi region administratively. The latter is called Upper Svaneti and is included in Mestia region administratively. After the breakdown of the Georgian Kingdom (XV century) Svaneti had not been one administrative unit any more. Feudal lords of different kins reigned in both gorges. Enguri Gorge and Tskheniskali Gorge are divided into two parts by the Svaneti Range the length of which is 80 km and it is situated at the height of 3.000-3.500 metres above the sea level. This range made contacts and movement between two gorges difficult. The whole area of Svaneti comprises 6.9%. The river Enguri of Upper Svaneti takes its flow from Skhara Mkinvari (2.800m above the sea level). The village Ushguli, which is at the head of the Enguri Gorge, is situated at the height of 2 000 metres from the sea level. The lowest place from the sea level at the Enguri Gorge is the village Khaishi (550m). It is comparatively a new settlement together with Lakhamula. As far as Tkheniskhali Gorge (Lower Svaneti) is concerned, it takes its head from several Lapuri Mkinvari (2.707m above the sea level). Tkheniskhali Gorge actually includes several rivers, the main of which is Lapuri as well as: Tsanaskali, Chorokhi and others. If Svans want to get to the lowland now they have to follow the highway and come to Samegrelo. This road was built in the XX century. Before that they used the shorter ways to get to the different parts of Georgia (Imereti, Kartli). From the head of Enguri Gorge (Ushguli) they moved to Tskheniskali Gorge where there are two villages now (Tsana and Zeskho) and several former villages. From here there was a short passage to Rioni Gorge i.e. historical-ethnographical part of Racha. From Racha they went straight to Kartli through Liakhvi Gorge.

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:08 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Svaneti border ends up at the Muri Rock in Tkheniskhali Gorge where the administrative centre of Lechkhumi – Tsageri is situated. It seems surprising but it is a fact that the settlements of Lechkhumi and Lower Svaneti are two kilometres away from each other but for centuries the people of two neighbouring villages have been speaking two different languages – Georgian (Lechkhumi inhabitants) and Svanuri.

Kodori Gorge Svaneti or as Svans call it “Dali’s Svaneti” is separated. Administratively it belongs to the Gulripshi region of Abkhazia. According to the ethnographic data, Svans were settled in Kodori (Dali) Gorge in the XIX century. Their settlement was not a single act. Their migration continued even in the beginning of the XX century. According to a narrator (Gulbaat Merlan), “people of our kin live in Dali’s Svaneti, too. Three families moved there. They left 70-80 years ago.” In Dali Gorge Svaneti the Guledanis (Enguri Gorge, Lenjeri community) live, too. According to the narrator’s words, “the families of father and uncle were not separated and for three years each of the brothers stayed in Dali Gorge and replaced each other. We lived in such a way because there were better conditions there.” In Dali (Kodori) Gorge Svaneti there are the representatives of almost every kin from Enguri Gorge. But as the historical documents and ethnographic data show, Kodori Gorge and its neighbouring areas had been populated by Svans before. As it seems, they were settled even in the important part of the current Abkhazian territory which is proved by the analyses of toponymies. Besides the old Georgian name of the capital of current Abkhazia Sukhumi (“Tskhumi”) which can be deciphered with the help of the Svan language and means hornbeam, linguists name such other toponymies that are explained by Svan language (e.g. Gagra>Gakra which means walnut in Svanuri. T. Gvantseladze).

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:09 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
The fact that Kodori Gorge had been the living place of Svans before is clear from other sources, too. Ancient authors mentioned about the people who they called “Misimianelians”. As Academicians S. Kaukchishvili and G. Melikishvili stated, (S. Kaukchishvili, The Tribe of Misimianelians – TSU Works, I, Tbilisi, 1936; G. Melikishvili, For the Issues of Ancient Population in Georgia, Caucasus and Nearest East, Tbilisi, 1965), the name of Svans itself “Mu-shuan” was changed into “Misimian” in Greek language. Moreover, Besarion Nizharadze fixed the important ethnographic materials and narrations according to which the border between Abkhazians and Svans was running on the bridge over the river Nenkra: “not only once the bloodshed between Abkhazians and Svans took place in this area. When Svans grabbed the cattle from Abkhazians, the latter chased after them. If Svans managed to cross the mentioned bridge Abkhazians returned back but if they overtook them then the fierce struggle started” (B. Nizharadze. Historical-ethnographic Letters, II, Tbilisi, 1964, p.159). These mountains belonged to Svaneti nobilities named the Dadeshkelianis and Svans took away the pastures from Abkhazians. In case of not paying for the pastures, Svans used to grab the cattle from Abkhazians. In 1863-1864 when Mamatsashvili was an executive of Svaneti, “mountains of Murzakani were in this Executive’s possession. He allowed grabbing the cattle if Abkhazians would not pay for the pastures” (see the same place, p. 160). B. Nizharadze also wrote that “this Chuberi is the low branch of the river Nenkra. People had lived here long before. I saw the tower and ruined houses. According to Vichi (B. Nizharadze’s guide), somewhere here in the hidden place there is a small church full of wealth but a sinful person cannot find it because such is the God’s will. Vichi told me the long story in an answer to my question where people went and why they left such a rich gorge. I will try to tell it short: The people living here left for Upper Svaneti” (B. Nizharadze. II, 160). B. Nizharadze writes: “In Chubakhevi community, in the village of Tsaleri there is a family named Gvarmiani. The Gvarmianis repeatedly state even today that their ancestors originally came from Dali’s Gorge” (B. Nizharadze. II, 51). When did Kodori (Dali) George Svans possibly move to Enguri Gorge Svaneti and particularly which villages did they settle? Several kins state to be originally from Kvemo (Below) Bali Svaneti and settled in Zemo (Upper) Bali Svaneti according to the narratives. This migration might have occured in the XV-XVI centuries when the central unified Georgian state broke up into many kingdom-principalities and weakening of the central control minimized the feudal relations in Kvemo (Below) Bali Svaneti (or the upper part of Enguri Gorge) which caused in its turn the revival of territorial tribal relations in social attitudes.

It should be underlined that among the ruins of Kodori Gorge the author of the XIX century fixes towers, which together with other circumstances obviously indicates that Svans had lived in this area once. It is known that Abkhazians (and generally Abkhazian-Adighian tribes) did not know about the culture of tower (it was completely unknown for them). The most principle is that Svans took pastures from Abkhazian cattlemen in Dali’s George which indicates directly to the circumstance that Dali Gorge (generally Kodori Gorge) was once inhabited by Svans - the people of which were called Misimianelians by ancient authors.

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:11 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Even B. Nizharadze wrote that Rioni Gorge was once inhabited by Svanuri-speaking people: “154 households live in the village of Ghebi. Both internally and externally Ghebi will remind you of the Svan village at the very first sight; there are the same two and rarely three-storey stone houses close to one another, some towers as it is generally acceptable in Svaneti; So that all these and a lot of others, I repeat, give Ghebi a colour of the Svan village” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 45-50). The same author writes that “the ancestors of present Ghebi people were Svans and spoke Svan language. Ghebi is not the only example of the villages with Svanuri family names in the Racha and Lechkhumi regions” (p. 50). Besides the toponymy of “Ghebi”, B. Nizharadze also considers “Chiora” and “Glola” to be Svanuri toponymies.

As we can see, historically Svans were settled on the larger territory and then their settling area was reduced gradually as a result of their assimilation with the other Georgian-speaking groups (Georgians, Megrels). The borders of contemporary Svaneti actually had already been formed by the early period of the middle ages. The present day Svaneti is surrounded by the main ridge of Caucasus to the north. In the northern Caucasus the neighbouring borderers of Svans are Karachaelians and Balkarians who are called by Svans “Saviarians” etnonymycally. As it is clear in the Georgian as well as in non-Georgian historic and ethnological materials, Svans were settled in the north Caucasus, particularly at the beginning of the rivers Tergi and Kuban where the Svan toponymies also have been confirmed (see L. Lavrov. Settling of Svans in the Northern Caucasus before XIX century // Issues of Ethnography of Caucasus, Tbilisi, 1952, p. 78-89). Mentioned above a XIX-century author B. Nizharadze wrote: “We know that the northern slopes of this range, the nearby places of which are occupied by Chegemi, Baksani (Urusbyev) and Karacha communities, had been in the possession of Svaneti until the present time and was assessed by Svans. For example, Chegemi community paid 12 sheep every year in favour of Mulari community. Bakhsani and Karacha paid dues or gave pastures to principality Svans or their princes. Remnants of Christianity found by the travelers in Chegemi, Bakhsani and Karacha areas prove that before the present inhabitants the people of Christian confession had lived here. We think that they must have been Svans who moved to Svaneti only then when the Islamic ancestors of present inhabitants had forced them to leave or they had escaped themselves from Islamic confession” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 51-52).

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:12 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
On the verge of old and new eras a Greek Geographer Strabon mentioned the settling of Svans on the tops of Caucasus, above Dioskuria (Sukhumi - present main city of Abkhazia). Memandre, a historian in the second half of the VI century, also mentioned that “Svans were one of the tribes who lives around Caucasus”; “They (Svans – R.T.) live on the top of Caucasus” (Georgica, III, Tbilisi, 1936, p.221). This information makes it clear that Svans lived even in the northern Caucasus by the VI century. Nothing else can be meant by the words of a historian about their stay around Caucasus. When the ancestors of Svans settled in the northern Caucasus is too difficult to clarify. According to the Russian sources, “In 1562 the owner of Kabardo Temur-Kva (“Temryuk”) occupied “ “the living places (a hundred and sixty-four houses) of Mshanis and Sonis ...” ( ПСБЛ , Volume XIII, second half, СПБ , 1969, p. 371). It is obvious that in the Russian sources by mentioning Mshanis and Sonis, Svans are meant. Mshani is read as the name of Svans itself “Mshan”. Kabardians called Svans “Sone”. Besides, in the bordering countries of the northern Caucasus, as researchers point, there are still some toponymies which can be explained by means of the Svan language; also Svan towers, family names of Svan origin, ruins of Christian churches and others. Mentioned Russian ethnographer L. Lavrov supposed Svans stay in the northern Caucasus (at the head of the rivers Kubani and Baksan) since the XIV century. He wrote that “the living place of Svans at the head of the rivers Kubani and Baksani have left their trace in toponymy” and listed so called similar toponymies: “Uchkulani” and “Ushguli”, “Khumara”(Skhumari) and “Tskumari”, “Lashkuta” and “Lashkheti”. He confirmed the ruins of the castle of the middle centuries near the village Khumara were called “Shoana”, “Shuana” and “Shona”. L. Lavrov’s decision is as follows: “given data allow us to suppose that in a certain historical age the part of the northern Caucasus, in the first place the upper reaches of the river Kubani and Baksani were populated by Svans.” In other materials he wrote that “Svans took possession of Baksani Gorge ... between 1743 and 1773. The reign of Svans at the upper courses of Kubani must have been related to far earlier times, particularly until the settling of Turks here from Baksani i.e. roughly speaking, on the verge of XVII-XVIII centuries” (p.344). The Russian scientist concludes in the end that “Settling Svans in the northern Caucasus until XIX century cannot be beyond any doubt” (p. 344).

A clerk of the Russian General Staff I. F. Flaramberg, who was in the northern Caucasus in the 30s of the XIX century, wrote that a village of Khulami is situated to the west bank of Cherekh-sakho where the Svan families live who wear Imeruli clothes up to now and are called “Sonis” (Adighians, Balkarians and Karachaelians in the Information of Authors the XIII-XIX centuries. Nalchik, 1974, pp 256-257).

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:13 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
In the appeal of Digorkhan Gardapkhadze-Dadishgeliani (Tsioq Dadishgeliani’s wife) referred to the Governor of Caucasus Rozen we can read the following: “The manor of Svaneti which has been in our possession up to now and is ours, their estate shares its border with the village Tegeni to Cherkez side and there is a border with Karachaelians where the lowland Klavi ends up which is called Labgviari and this Labgviari is ours and beyond it – Karachaelians’ ” (State Central Historical Archive of Georgia, Fund 2, Description 1, Act # 4465, p. 245). “Tegeni” which is mentioned in the letter is the present village Tegenkta of Kabardo and “Labgviari” (Svanuri toponymy) is the present Ulu-kami Gorge. Digorkhani also wrote that “on the side of Cherkezians who moved from Cherkezia and settled in the village Bakhsani, is our own. Because of the fact that people who live there today had lived in the Cherkezian village of Bingisi and half of them moved to their estate in the village of Nakmuki and not long ago Tatarkhani’s father Tsioq moved them from Nakmuki to our own village Bakhsani on the request of their chief Ismail Virispilov whose son Mirzaqula is now alive and lives in our village Bakhsani and where our peasants live in Bakshani. They died of plague and the rest of them were resettled by Tsioq to the village Leshteri (Pari community village Gheshderni) and Lashkhari (Pari community village Lashkhari), who served us by the serfage rule”. It is clear from the same letter that “When Karachaelians used our land called Labgviari or in another words as pastures to feed their cattle, they gave us their dues for pasture without any hesitation”.

According to ethnographic materials, some kins living in Svaneti moved from the northern Caucasus. For example, the Vezdenis who live in Becho think that they moved from Balkaria. Their separated relatives bear the surname of the Vezdenovs there; they are relatives. Svans have not stopped agricultural-economical links with them until the recent period. They go to Balkaria (Svans call Balkarians “Saviarians”) to scythe and they give cattle, horses, saddles ... in return. According to a Svan narrator, those who often went there could speak their language. “We know our boundaries and coal is buried at the border. Coal can be kept for centuries in the ground”. According to the ethnographic data, the Goshtelianis come from the country of Saviarians. In Kabardo there is the family of Shakhmurzaevs who are originally the Gujejianis. As reported, they moved there two-three centuries ago from Svaneti. The Kurdanovs who live in the northern Caucasus are the successors of the Kurdianis who had moved there from Upper Svaneti Mulakhi Community.

By the way, toponymy “Bakhsani” once the Svan settlement can be explained by the Svan language which, as they say, means divided, split place (similar toponymy - the name of the village can be found in the east Georgian mountainous part Gudamaqari, too: “Bakhani”). “Labgviari” is a Svanuri toponymy, too which means the place to build a bridge across it. There are more than one Svanuri toponymies in the Svaneti bordering northern Caucasus (oiconymies). Among them are: “Uchkulan”, “Kojurdi”, “Javliq”. “Ushgul” means a crooked place. There is a Svanuri word “Koj” (rock) in “Kojurd”. By the way, an ethnographer M. Gegeshidze explained the meaning of the toponymy “Kojori” using Svan language (near Tbilisi).

The border with Samegrelo in Enguri Gorge seems to have been drawn at the village Jvari until the XIX century. It followed directly “Tskhvimzagari” but according to archive sources, - “Tskhvimzagela” ridge. Inhabitants of the village Jvari keep narratives about that. Besides, we can read in one of the archive documents the following: “When settlers of Tskvirmzagala from the side of Samegrelo come out then we take pastures for cattle and some jobs from them. Beyond the borders there is a village Jvari which belongs to the prince Katsia Dadiani and Vameq and Niko and their relatives” (Georgian Central Archive, F.2, or Act # 4465, p. 246). B. Nizharadze mentioned the following about the border between Svaneti and Samegrelo: “I find it necessary to list the places where Svans lived near Enguri Gorge between Svaneti and Samegrelo in old times. These are the followings: 1) Khuberi, 2) Idliani, 3) Naqolvar-Khaishdi, 4) Vedi, 5) Ipari, 6) Katsledi, 7) Chuberian-Mashrichala, 8) Dusi, 9) Khidari and 10) Chabani. There are four ruined churches among the mentioned places, two - Saint George’s, one Archangel’s and one Christ’s Church. But today, i.e. 1878 six Svans live in these places. There are ruins of many houses in every place. Besides, in Ipari brick water-pipes were found” (B. Nizharadze, II, 168).

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:15 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
As has been mentioned, Svaneti mainly is divided into two parts both geographically and ethnographically: Lower Svaneti or Tskheniskali Gorge Svaneti and Upper Svaneti or Enguri Gorge Svaneti. In its turn, Svaneti is divided into two parts by Bali Range: Above Bali Svaneti and Below Bali Svaneti. In scientific materials Below Bali Svaneti is known as principality or the Dadeshgelianis’ Svaneti, but Above Bali Svaneti – as free Svaneti, without any princes. Lower Svaneti together with Lechkhumi was in the possession of Samegrelo princes - the Dadianis in late middle ages.

We do not have any statistical data about how many people lived in Svaneti in the middle ages. Different authors determine differently the number of heads in the households in the XIX century – 5 to 12-15 heads. We find A. Gelovani’s opinion more acceptable that the average Svan family consisted of about nine heads considering the fact that in that period there still were so called big family. A XIX-century demographic situation of Svaneti was also affected by frequent epidemics, migration of people to the lowland. Svaneti sustained migration in the view of the fact that it was traditionally characteristic for them to travel to look for the job outside Svaneti. In the 70s of the XVIII century a German scientist and traveler Giuldenshtedt detrmined the population of Svaneti by 5 thousand households. We have mentioned above that Svan household supposedly consisted of 9 members. As a result of multiplication of these two data, 45 thousand people lived in Svaneti in the second half of the XVIII century. In 1820-1823 S. Bronevski defined the population of Svaneti by 3000 people based on the different data. If we still count 9 members in the household, it means that by the mentioned time the population of Svaneti comprised 27 thousand heads. The reduction of the population to such extent seems justly to A. Gelovani due to the existing severe epidemic in 1811-1812. By that time Black Death almost banished the people of the west Georgia. According to the archive data of 1832, A. Gelovani fixed that by that period more than 25 thousand people lived in Svaneti. In 1834 Staff-captain Shakhovski determines the population of Svaneti by 29 000 heads. According to O. Evetski’s data, 30 thousand people lived in Svaneti in 1835.

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:16 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
In the 40s of the XIX century the population of Svaneti reduced again which was the result of epidemic (cholera) this time, too. In the 60s of the XIX century the whole population of Svaneti comprised 15 676 people. By that time, from the middle of the XIX century the resettling of Svans started in Dali (Kodori Gorge) Svaneti. G. Gasviani points that “in the middle of the XIX century about one hundred households moved to Abkhazian Svaneti” (G. Gasviani. Studies on the History of Middle Ages Svaneti, Tbilisi, 1991, p.19). Other data say that 184 households moved from Chubekhevi to Dali. (E. Kalveit. Studies on the Agriculture of Upper Svaneti – ZOIRGO Book XXVI. Issues 9, Tif., 1911, pp. 63-64). By A. Gelovani’s calculation, the number of Svans settled in Svaneti was 200-250 households (A. Gelovani, Svaneti in the XIX Century, Dissertation, 2002, p. 41). The people repressed by the Dadeshkelianis from the separate villages of Chubekhevi, especially from Lakhamula, moved to the area of Khudon-Lakhamula on both sides of the river Enguri in the middle of the XIX century. The people of Lakhamula had started to settle there since the end of the XVIII century but the process became intensive in the XIX century. Such was the origin of the following villages as Ipari, Dizi, Jorkvali, Chekhi, Laani, Tobakhi, Lukhvi, Gaghma Khaishi (on one side of the river), Gamoghma Khaishi (on the other side of the river), Vedi, Skormeti, Naki, Tsitskhvari, Idliani, Shgedi, Nalkolvari, Totani, Barjashi, Khudoni.

According to the household records of 1886, in 91 villages of Svaneti (Enguri Gorge) there lived 1175 households and 9527 heads, but in Lower Svaneti (Tskheniskali Gorge) – 2048 heads. Altogether there lived 11 570 people in Svaneti by that time.

Before we survey the household record data made in 1886 according to single villages, let us touch on the issue of Svaneti communities. Both Enguri and Tskheniskali Gorges were united in the territorial communities. The above mentioned Gorges were connected to each other by the Lathari Zekari (Pass). Tskheniskali Svaneti contained three communities in all: Lentekhi community, Choluri community and Lashkheti community.

Lentekhi community included Lentekhi itself, the village Paqi and the village Leksura. Lentekhi is built on the place where the rivers Khvedura and Laskadura join the river Tskheniskali. Here on the top of the Lara mountain the castle Larashi was built between the Khvedura and Laskadura.

There were three stone churches in the village Paqi which bore the name of the Virgin (E. Takaishvili. Archeological Expedition in Lechkhum-Svaneti in 1910, Paris, 1937. p.86). 22 households lived in the village Paqi at the beginning of the XX century. According to the ethnographical data, Paqi church was the biggest and strongest one. It gathered pilgrims not only from Lower Svaneti but from other neighbouring parts (e.g. from Lechkhumi). The church of the Saginadzes (who come from Upper Svaneti; originally the Saghlianis) “Shturo Archangel” and “The Paqi Virgin” (“Paqi diptych”) were of the same power. Ethnographic materials: “The angels were three brothers. They flew up. One landed in Paqi, the second - in Shturo and the third one in Chkumi (Lechkhumi) and churches were founded”. In the Lentekhi community village of Leksura E. Takaishvili fixed the “Virgin’s” wooden church and in a small village Gulidi – the church named after Christ.

Добавлено (2007-03-02, 9:17 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
According to the household records of 1886, there were only 12 villages in the Lentekhi territorial community. Besides the mentioned villages Lentekhi, Paqi, Leksura and Gulidi, we can name: Kakhura, Qvedreshi, Melura, Rtskhmeluri, Khapuri, Kheleda, Tsanashi, Tsiplakaki, Chaluri. There were only 232 households with 2 043 heads in the community (1058 males, 985 females). There were 8.8 members in a family on average. The biggest village was Paqi (42 households, 391 people). According to the number of households then comes: Lekura (39 households, 391 heads), Gulida (30 households, 240 heads), Melura (26 households, 241 heads), Rtskhmeluri (19 households, 154 heads), Kheleda (17 households, 130 heads), Kakhura (13 households, 97 heads), Tsanashi (12 households, 127 heads), Kvedreshi (12 households, 141 heads), Tsiplakeki (10 households, 101 heads), Khapuri (8 households, 71 heads), Chaluri (4 households, 33 heads).

According to archive data of 1904, (Kutaisi State Archive, Fund 8, Description 1, Act # 819) the biggest family name in Lentekhi community was Liparteliani. 81 families by this name lived there. As for other family names, they were represented in the following number: the Chakselianis (Charkselianis) – 17 households, the Tvildianis – 24 families, the Kuraspedianis – 24 households, the Bendelianis – 7 households, (the Bendelianis were migrated in a large number to Lechkhumi in the villages Chkumi, Latsoria and Kulbaki); the Kardavas – 7 families, the Gazdelianis – 9 families, the Gvichianis – 7 families, the Muselianis – 6 families, the Gugavas – 6 families. The Gugavas who moved from Tskheniskali Svaneti Gorge live in the villages of Lechkhumi, Chkhuteli and Usakhelo. The Gugavas were resettled from Lower Svaneti Lentekhi community village of Laskadura. In Lower Svaneti they also lived in the village Gvimrali. It is worth noting that this family name was mentioned in the folk tales several times by the inhabitants of the village Usakhelo in the form of “Gugavani”. The Gugavas moved from Svaneti to Lechkhumi quite long ago. In the document of the XVI century “Tsageri Church Document” in Lechkhumi two families of the Gugavas are mentioned but in the form of “Gugava”: “Susula Gugava owes...”, “Okropir Gugava owes....”. According to a narrator A. Ch. Gugava, “We are originally from Upper Svaneti. There were three brothers there. Then these brothers broke their word and they were repressed. They escaped. They were afraid of vendetta. One brother stayed in Lower Svaneti, the other stayed here in Lechkhumi. They came from Upper Svaneti with the family name of Gugava. In the document of second half of the XIII century “Chronicle of Svaneti Gathering” we can find the name “Gogani” (P. Ingorokva, p. 137,153). Gugavas might be the descendents of these particular Goganis.

As for the Bendelianis mentioned above, they were migrated largely as well to Lechkhumi village of Kulbaki (Jonouli Gorge). According to narrators, the Bendelianis had been settled in Kulbaki earlier than others. Their predecessors moved there from Tskheniskali Gorge Svaneti village of Kheleda. According to the census of 1904 more than 50 households of the Bendelianis lived in Lechkhumi. Their ancestors did something wrong and resettled.” The Gasvianis and Lipartelianis moved to the same village. Part of the Gasvianis was also socially advanced. They were nobleman. As for the Lipartelianis, they kept going to Choluri community to pray.

According to data of the mentioned census in 1904, there were more than one expanded families in Lentekhi community where 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33 members often live together. Like in the whole community the number of men dominated over the number of women in every expanded family.

In ethnographic and linguistic view, the first names of men popular in Lentekhi community in 1904 is of not less interest: Abram, Bieto, Beko, Besi, Bashula, Bota, Basho, Bezho, Gegi, Giorgi, Gabo, Gio, Goginiela, Gevo, Gogi, Kvatsi, Kvati, Mochila, Mike, Moge, Sosi, Tasila, Chito, Chichola, Chita, Khora, Khvachi, Khakhu, Khasi, Jakhi, Jati, Jakva...

According to the census of 1904, in Choluri territorial community of Lower Svaneti the following villages were included: Buleshi (9 households, 69 heads), - it must be Shuleshi mentioned by Ekvtime Takaishvili; Mutsdi (Mutsti) – 26 households, 183 heads; Saqdari (13 households, 90 heads); Tvibi (18 households, 142 heads), Tekal-Leusheri (11 households, 53 heads). Tekali and Levsheri are mentioned separately by E. Takaishvili; Chvelieri (37 households, 257 heads), (E. Takaishvili stated that there were two Chvelieris – Kvemo (Lower) Chvelieri and Zemo (Upper) Chvelieri); Zemo (Upper) Chouli (35 households, 280 heads), Shtveli (11 households, 79 heads). By 1904 there were 161 households in Choluri community with 1153 heads (7.16 heads per household on average). Besides populated villages, E Takaishvili mentions the following villages in Choluri community: Lower Choluri, Upper Choluri, Mami, Ukuleshi, Zagoloti. The number of households is 185 according to him.

According to the census of 1904, Choluri community belonged to the princes Gardapkhadzes, who comprised eight households. Bes. Nizharadze writes the following about the princes Gardapkhadzes: “Princes Gardapkhadzes live in Dadiani’s Svaneti, in Choluri community. They consider themselves to be from Ossetia. From the very beginning the princes Gardapkhadzes occupied Choluri community which shares its borders with Free Svaneti to the south” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 89). In Choluri territorial community there were several large family names: the Jamburidzes (17 families)”. The Jamburidzes moved from here to Lechkhumi village of Lasuria and they live in Makhashi, too. According to ethnographic data, they moved to Lechkhumi in the second haf of the XIX century from the village Mami, Lower Svaneti. Generally, the ancestors of the Jamburidzes settled in Kvemo (Lower) or Dadiani’s Svaneti from Samegrelo. Their former family name was Jamburia. They changed the formant of the family name -ia into -dze. Generally the family of the Jamburias moved to Samegrelo from Svaneti and their original surname was Jamburiani. We can definitely meet this family name several times in the document of XIII century about Enguri Gorge Svaneti (P. Ingorokva, p. 142-144).

The Zurabianis lived in Upper Svaneti territorial community of Choluri. According to archive data of 1904, 25 families of the Zurabianis lived there. In the mentioned period 10 families of the Lipartelianis lived in Choluri community. The Mukbanianis comprised 35 households. The Mukbanianis also lived in Lechkhumi vilage of Orbeli. According to the ethnographic data, they moved there from Dadiani’s Svaneti village of Chvelieri. According to a narrator, “even their grandfathers do not remember about their moving”. In 1904 in Choluri community there were 12 famillies of the Bendelianis. There was the same number of the Khabulianis. The Babluanis (8 families) and the Kvastianis (10 families) lived there, too. One family was registered as Bablua.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 5:59 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
At the beginning of the XX century E. Takaishvili gave a detailed description of each village of Choluri community and things preserved there. It is notable that all these churches and praying places bore the names of Christian Saints. For example, the church of Choluri community bears the name of Saint George. It used to be quite a big, high, square stone church. We think that the name of this village “Saqdari” was related to this church. In the inscription of one of the crosses of this church E. Takaishvili read the following: “Khevi noblemen”, also “Saint George of Lechi, bless the builders of yours Khevi Choluri and all those who worship you”. Does it mean that the original name of the church was “Lechi”? It is also clear from the inscription that in old times the Georgian term “Khevi” indicated the territorial community in Georgia. This is confirmed by historians in different sources not once. The church of the village Zemo (Upper) Chvelieri bore the name of Archangel, the church of Mami – Saint George, the church of the village Tekali – the Saviour. E. Takaishvili deciphered the inscription on the icon (silver) of the Saviour of this village as follows: “The Saviour of Lashari (written: “of Lashrso”), bless your builders who decorated this saint icon during the supremacy of the Dean Gela by name”. “The Saviour of Lashari (written: “of L~shrsa”), bless Ioane the Dean”. E. Takaishvili makes the following comments on this inscription: “we do not know exactly how to read the group “of Lashrsa”, as of Lasheri or Lashari. we do not know Lasheri, Lashari (Lashari Cross) is in Khevsureti (E. Takaishvili is wrong. “Lashari Cross” is not in Khevsureti. It is common prying place for Pshavi people – R. T.). Mentioned icon might have been brought from there” (p. 104). We think it is a very remarkable inscription. First of all, it should be clarified whether “Lasheri” (or similar toponymy) occurred somewhere else in Svaneti. The supposition might be right that the icon of the Saviour had been brought from Pshavi to Upper Svaneti, although we consider it less reliable. There is one more probability: Lashari Cross (icon) (praying place) appeared independently in Svaneti which can give us the possibility to make further conclusions. We can learn from the inscription that one and the same person could hold civic and cleric positions (supreme and the dean) which would not have been a rare occasion in mountainous Georgia.

The third and the biggest community was Lashkheti community of Dadiani’s Svaneti or Thkheniskali Gorge Svaneti. “Lashkheti”, as a unit of the geographical toponymy, was mentioned first in the documents of 1503. According to the census of 1904, Lashkheti territorail community involved 13 villages with 346 households and 2 456 heads (7.12 heads per household on average). If we summarize the demographic-statistical data of these three communities of Daiani’s Svaneti, we will see that by that time, there were 739 households and 5 561 people in Thkheniskali Gorge Svaneti. We can name the following villages of Lashkheti community: Ghobi (8 households with 59 heads lived in 1886), Jakhunderi (47 households, 145 heads), Lekosandi (16 householdds, 123 heads), Lemzagori - Kheria (23 households, 145 heads), (E. Takaishvili names these villages separately); Margvishi (5 households, 22 heads), Makhashi (15 households, 154 heads), Mebetsi (20 households, 123 heads), Mele (16 households, 133 heads), Natsuli (14 households, 144 heads), Sasashi-luji (53 households, 355 heads), Chikhareshi (54 households, 341 heads), Chukuli (41 households, 303 heads), Shgedi (Shvedi) (34 households, 277 heads). E. Takaishvili adds the name of the village Tsana (or Tsena) and two former villages near the pass (Zekari): Zeskhva and Lapuri. Today Tsana and Zeskho are populated by Svans who moved from Enguri Gorge to the most remote head of Tskheniskali Gorge. The village of Lashkheti community included 26.4 households on average and there were average number of 189 people in each village. In whole Lower Svaneti (Dadiani’s Svaneti) one household comprised 7.5 heads on average. The average number of the village household was determined by 25.9. In one village of Lower Svaneti 174 heads was registered on average. On the whole, there were 32 villages in Lower Svaneti by 1886.

According to data of 1904, in Lashkheti lived and had serf-peasants princes Gelovanis (22 families), princes Gardapkhadzes (4 families) and noblemen Devdarianis (5 families). The biggest family name was of the Onianis (119 households). The following family names were: the Jankhotelis (26 households. The Jankhotelis also lived in other villages of Lechkhumi – Gagulechi, Lailashi), the Chelidzes (16 households), the Pertsulianis (4 households); the Lobzhanidzes (16 households. generally, the Lobzhanidzes are the inhabitants of mountainous Racha or historical Svaneti “Mtiuleti” (Highland). As it seems, they moved to Lower Svaneti from here); the Bakuradzes (10 households. The Bakuradzes live in Lechkhumi, too), the Tedoradzes (5 households); the Kochabianis (3 households); the Gabianis (9 households); the Jincharadzes (8 households); the Avalianis (7 households. The Avalianis generally live in Upper Svaneti. They live in Racha, too); the Gvelebianis (4 households); the Pochianis (in the census of 1904 Pochiani has also another surname – Oniani. at the same time the Pochianis lived in the village Khoji, too (4 households). This surname is registered in the record of 1643-1661 about “Tsageri chapel peasants’ dues”); the Gulbianis (2 households); the Zurabianis (8 households. More Zurabianis lived in Choluri community); the Jamburidzes (3 households. Large number of them lived in Choluri community); the Gagnidzes (6 households); the Kipianis (2 households. Families with the same surname lived in Upper Svaneti and Racha, too. Here they belonged to the social title of gentries. The Kipianis even lived in Inner Kartli and Samtskhe. One of the Kipiani villages in Samtskhe was Mohammedan. Another surname – Erkanidze is ascribed to one family of Kipiani in Lashkheti); the Buchusanis (4 households); the Tataisanis or Thathaisanis (2 households. Another surname “Chelidze” is ascribed to one family and “Jankhoteli” to the other. Shall it be similar to Tutusani who also live in the Lechkhumi village of Tsiperchi? (26 households according to the census of 1904). This surname does not exist in Lower Svaneti today); the Nemsadzes (7 households).

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 5:59 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
According to data of 1904, in Lashkheti community also lived the following family names: the Janeldzes, the Dogvanis (now Dorghvanis). According to B. Nizharadze, “one family of “Doghvanis” and some households from the Jankhotelis, who live in the villages Lashkhari and Chikhareshi of Lashkheti community in Dadiani Svaneti now think themselves to be from Zeskhvi. Doghvani and Jankhoteli had met the then Makhvshi (chief) of Lashkheti Kansav Kipiani to give living quarters to them somewhere”); the Nakisianis (Nakanis?); the Chabukianis; the Dashnianis (one household of a nobleman Dashniani lived in the Lechkhumi village of Chkhuteli, too according to data of 1904); the Kochbianis; the Pirvelidzes (now the Pirvelis); the Archianis...

In Lashkheti territorial community there were more than one Christian monuments. Churches were built of both stone and wood. For example, E. Takaishvili pointed about the existence of a wooden church in the village Sasashi which bore the name of the Virgin. He wrote about the Saint George’s church in the village Jakhunderi that “it must be considered as one of the best in Lower Svaneti”. “According to the inscription, the name of the village was “Jakhundeli”. In the same place on the icon of the Virgin of the XV century the scientist read the following: “Saint Virgin, bless the noblemen, have your mercy on the village”. This inscription is an important source about the social status of the province.

It was mentioned above that the Janburidzes live in Lower Svaneti now. On the catafalque of the church in the village Chukuli there was the following inscription: “Saint George, give your blessing to Janbur and this village and Giorgi”. In this inscription it is not a certain Janbur who might be blessed but the whole family name of the Janburidzes. On the inscription of the XVI-XVII centuries’ icon of the Virgin we can read the following: “Saint Virgin, have your mercy on this place, all the noblemen”.

According to the Michael Archangel inscription of the XVI century, we can clarify that the family name of the Lorianis also lived in Tskheniskali Gorge Svaneti: “Saint Michael Archangel, have your mercy on Ivane Loriani. Saint Archangel, be helpful and protect Ivane Loriani and Ivane Doghvani”.

There were some churches named after the Virgin in Lower Svaneti. For example, in the church of the Virgin’s Assumption which was comparatively newly built in the village Chikhareshi there was the following inscription on the old preserved icon: “Saint Virgin, have your mercy on Kheva and its noblemen” (p. 121). It is obvious from the inscriptions of Svan churches that, together with the socially privileged person (nobleman) they entreated mercy and wellbeing of the village and Khevi (territorial community). It is characteristic for them. It is obvious that in feudal relations of mountains the territorial communities still played an important role.

On the wall of a small church in the Lower Svaneti village of Dabishi “Kvel Jabilani” and his wife “Tetrua” - a daughter of Lashkhishvili were painted. On the same wall were depicted “Nanba Ladghibiani” and “Merab Ghibiani” and also “Taibukh Ghibiani” and “Kutia - a daughter of Iashvili” and their son “Batsia”. “Jalibani”, “Ladghibiani”, “Ghibiani” painted on the wall of the church are undoubtedly noblemen Kipianis of further periods. It seems that the family name of Kipiani was reproduced by the phonetically changed form – “Ghibiani”. In later periods in the inscriptions on the Saviour’s icons of XVII-XVIII centuries we can meet “Kipiani”: “Satuti – a daughter of Kipiani”.

In Lower Svaneti, as well as in Upper Svaneti and Lechkhumi, there also lived the Devdarianis who were noblemen (Vargi in the Svan language) in Upper Svaneti). On one of the inscriptions of the icon in the village Mele E. Takhaishvili read the following: “a daughter of Devdariani Qazmi” (p. 124).

On the inscription of the icon preserved in the XVI century Archangel church in the village Natsuli “Vedrani Ivane” is mentioned. There are no more such family names in Svaneti (by the way, surname Vedrauli with the same root also existed in Pshavi). It seems that other families as well lived in Tskheniskali Gorge Svaneti, for example, Shvublianis. Currently families bearing this surname live in Lechkhumi, Kvemo (lower) Tsageri where they moved from the village Nanari. Representatives of this family name used to go to Nanari from Lechkhumi to pray there until the last time. According to the document of 1656, the Shkublianis were the inhabitants of Lechkhumi which proves that the migration of Svans in the direction of lowland is old. The Nanukashvilis and Gogrichianis who live in Racha moved there from the village Khiduri, at the head of Tskeniskali. The owners of Lower Svaneti Lashkheti territorial community (noblemen) used to be the Lashkis according to ethnographical data (Lashkhishvilis, Laskhishvilis). The name of the community was called after their family name ( Lashkhi - Lashkheti). No one by these family names live in Racha at all at present. As a 10ld man Simon Gabiani told B. Nizharadze, “the first owner of Laskheti was Laskhishvili. Their family name was overthrown by the Japaridzes (as E. Takhaishvili read on the inscription of the icon of the Saviour in the village Shgedi “Lord, help and protect Nasqida Japaridze and his wife Satut Kipiani”), then the Japaridzes were overthrown by the Kipianis. None of the families was as big as Kipianis” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 79). The fact is that by 1503 Laskhishvilis did not live in Tskheniskali Gorge Svaneti and they were the noblemen of racha by that time. In the late middle centuries neither Japaridzes nor Kipianis were princes in Lower Svaneti. Princes Gelovanis, Gardapkhadzes and noblemen Devdarianis were owners of Lashkheti by then.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:00 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
We have mentioned the family of Partsvelanis among those who lived in Zemo (Upper) Tskheniskali Gorge (Dadiani) Svaneti. Pertsulianis are Partsvelanis as mentioned by B. Nizharadze: “In Lashkheti there were two friends (Latslamgva - in the Svan Language), Docha Gabiani and Partsvelan Partsvelani. Partsvelani had an ugly sister. Docha intended to get married to Partsvelani’s ugly sister. Partsvelani was against it; He said to Docha that he could not live with his sister long, he would get rid of her, it would upset him and they would become enemies; he suggested his friend to keep away from his sister. Docha did not listen to his friend’s advice and got married to Partsvelani’s ugly sister. They lived together for a year and then got rid of her. It made Partsvelani angry. He took a small pumpkin; put the soil of his garden and fields into it; went to Ushguli and hung it on the doors of the Virgin church. In old times it was a sign of pleading to the society and it was always completed by them. The whole Ushguli assembled. Partsvelani referred to the gathering to punish Dochi Gabiani severely. The gathering respected Partsvelani’s appeal and went to punish Dochi Gabiani led by the then chief (Makhvshi -in the Svan Language) of Ushguli Begash Ratiani. They could not find Dochi in the village. Ushguli fell on Dochi’s village Shgedi and two neighbouring villages – Natsuli and Ghvebi. Ushguli took away all the animals the three villages possessed. People of Shgedi went to the then prince (Makhvshi -in the Svan Language) of Lashkheti Bezhana Kipiani and asked him to help them to make Ushguli leave the animals taken away by them. Bezhana gathered the whole Lashkheti immediately and ran after the Ushguli attackers who were leading their way to Thkhenistkali Gorge” (B. Nizharadze, II, pp. 79-80). Lashketi people and their feudal lord Kipiani were defeated in the battle against Ushguli. There is a lot of truth in this old narrative. It is obvious that it was not favourable for the sufferer Partsvelani to punish his former friend and later enemy by the feudal law and he referred to Ushguli people to help him. There were no feudal relations there and any kind of offence was judged by the habitual law, according to the decision made by the people. One thing is also clear that, although there were feudal relations in the mountains but a lot of families and among them the Partsvelanis maintained the mentality characteristic for the tribal relation. He looks for the truth (made by the people) and does not revenge individually on Gabiani for his offence. After this case the family of Partsvelan Partsvelanis could not stay in Svaneti. If they had survived the battle they would probably have moved to the lowland. It is possible that the family name of the Partsvanias who live in Samegrelo at present are the descendants of those Partsvelanis.

According to the narratives mentioned above, at the head of the Tskheniskali Gorge in the village of Tsena from where there is a passage to the head of the Enguri Gorge, in the village Ushguli lived the Todruanis (B. Nizharadze, p. 80). The Todruanis do not live in Svaneti any more. It is possible that the Todrias or Tordias who live in Samegrelo were the descendants of these particular Todruanis.

The owners of Choluri community were princes Gardapkhadzes (in Svanuri: “Gadpkhanar”). The noblmen Kurdianis and Zhorzholianis belonged to the Gardapkhadzes. They possessed the best lands there. The palaces of the Gardapkhadzes in the village Tekali (as well as the Gelovanis’ palace in Lashkheti village of Shgedi) were significantly different from the household complex of peasants. The passage from Free Svaneti (from Above Bali Svaneti Enguri Gorge) crossed their village: “the location of the Gardapkhadzes is remarkable with the fact that a passer-by from Free Svaneti had to pass through their village and stay overnight there. Because of this the Gardapkhadzes had many acquaintances in Svaneti” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 89).

Regarding Upper Svaneti, both from geographical and social point of view (at least in the late middle centuries), it (Enguri Gorge Svaneti) was divided into two parts: Above Bali Svaneti and Below Bali Svaneti, i.e. these two units were seperated by the Bali range. In other words, Above Bali Svaneti is known as Free Svaneti and Below Bali Svaneti as principality (Dadeshkeliani’s) Svaneti. There is an opinion in historiography that the feudal relation was abolished in Above Bali Svaneti in the XVII-XVIII centuries, although this opinion is less acceptable for us because the abolishment of Svan princes must have happened earlier after the demolition of unified kingdom when the centre could not manage to control the provinces and especially the mountainous regions. In Balszemo (Above Bali) part of Upper Svaneti the feudal relations was supposedly demolished by the XV century. It should be noted that in this geographical situation feudal relations obviously could not have been deep, it was superficial and mountainous communities would not have found it difficult to destroy it. Nevertheless, some noble families continued existing “Vargi” (in Svan Language) by name but it was only formal.

In Dadeshkeliani’s Below Bali Svaneti only one feudal name (family name) – the Dadeskelianis dominated. Obviously, other family names were socially privileged as well until the XVIII century, though. The Dadeshkelianis won the battle over the Richgvianis and the former destroyed the representatives of the Richgviani family.

If we start from the head of Enguri Gorge, first was the Ushguli community. Then came Kala community, Ipari community, Muzhali community, Mulakhi community, Mestia community, Lenjeri community, Latali community. (In some scientific researches Adishi community, Tsvirma community and Ieli community are separated – see Al. Charkviani, Svaneti, 1967, p. 237. We think this opinion is worth sharing. Historically there were more communities. If we observe the historical documents it seems to be true. They mentioned such communities as (by the then terms “Khevebi”), which did not exist in the era of new history or they were joined to other communities. Enlargement of territorial communities was a natural event. In such a way they linked Muzhalo community to Mulakhi, Adishi, Ieli and Tsvirma communities to (Khevebi) – to Ipari and so on).

The villages of the Ushguli ( Ushkuli ) community are located on the head of the Enguri Gorge. In scientific materials four villages of Ushguli community are usually mentioned. They are: Zhibiani, Chvibiani (Chubiani), Chazhashi and Muqmeri (Merqmer). The latter is called differently by B. Nizharadze “in old times Zemo (Upper) and Kvemo (Lower) Ushguli”. A. Charkviani also includes two villages of the Tskheniskali Gorge: Zeskho and Tsana (A. Charkviani, p. 236) which is not acceptable for us. These two villages together with other former villages certainly formed another community (Khevi ) in one’s time. Migration of population from there and destroying them caused the demolition of so called “Zeskho-Tsana” community. According to the family register of 1886 as well, above mentioned four villages were included in the village community of Ushguli. Totally 75 households and 528 heads (285 males and 243 females) lived there. The largest of all was Muqmeri comprising 33 households (220 heads). There were 26 households and 211 heads in Chazhashi, 10 households and 63 heads in Zhibiani, and 6 households and 34 heads in Chubiani respectively. All these villages are linked with one another and as E. Takaishvili mentioned, it “looked like a town with its high towers” (E. Takaishvili, p.135). Also according to data of 1940, 33 families lived in Murqmeli, 10 hoeseholds in Chazhashi, 11 households in Chvibiani and 24 households in Zhibiani. The original family names of Ushguli inhabitants were: Nizharadze (26 households in 1940), Charkseliani (13 households in 1940), Charkviani (5 households in 1940), Ratiani (5 households), Khachvani (5 households), Chelidze (7 households), Asatiani (2 households), Davituliani (2 households), Kakriashvili (8 households) and Ghvachliani (5 households). The latter name among the Svaneti inhabitants was also mentioned in the document of the XIV century. In the chronicles (of the confessors) of the XIII-XIV centuries the Ratianis are mentioned, too (see P. Ingorokva, II, 142, 143). A priest Romanoz Charksiani is mentioned in the XVII-XVIII century inscription of the Saviour’s church in the Ushguli village Murqmeri. In other places Romanoz is mentioned as “Charikasdze”. Certainly this particular Romanoz Charksiani (Charikasdze) is the same Charkseliani – the ancestor of the Charkselianis. The Charkvianis have been mentioned in the documents created in the middle centuries many a time. A witness “Igdar Asatiani” was included in the documents about Seti community dated back to the XIV-XV centuries.

Besides the river Enguri, another river (Kvishnari) flows in Ushguli. B. Nizharadze mentioned that “compared to each other, Ushguli could have six times more areas for pastures than for ploughing and cultivating and four times more than the forests. The area for ploughing is not enough for people; there are some people who do not have the land for ploughing enough for more than 4 days. Besides the lack of the area the ground was not fertile either; It is necessary to improve the fields every third year, otherwise the harvest will be poor and sometimes it will yield none” (B. Nizharadze, II, 64). We brought this extended extract to show you the unfavourable natural geographical conditions the Ushguli people lived in.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:01 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
B.Nizharadze compared Usghuli with its sixty-one households to the town. By his time (in the 70s of the XIX century) there were 100 houses made of stone and lime there out of which “39 stay without anybody living in them” (p.66). Ushguli was distinguished by the number of towers (“There are 59 nice, high, narrow, plastered and whitewashed towers there”). At the same time there used to be 7 churches in Ushguli. Ushguli which is located on the very head of the Enguri Gorge is closer to Racha and Lower Svaneti than to some villages of the Enguri Gorge Svaneti. Ushguli was so rich with its pastures that “people sent their cattle there to fatten up from the remote villages of Free Svaneti as well; shepherds of Ushguli took care of them until autumn and afterwards they were taken away to be slaughtered” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 10). It was the source of extra earning for Ushguli inhabitants.

There is a small hill at the Virgin church in Ushguli which people call “Saviare-Lashtkhval”. It means the burial place for Saviarians. According to the narrative, once Saviarians came to rob the Virgin church. It made the Virgin insulted and decided to deprive non-believer Saviarians of their eyesight. The following day the people of Ushguli saw the blind robbers. When they learnt about their intention they killed the robbers and buried them there (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 11). People did not have mercy on the local criminals either. At the same place by the decision of the village gathering, two brothers Ratianis were killed by thrusting a spear because they had stolen an icon from the Virgin church.

In Usghuli community Sumaisha Charkviani moved from Tsena-Ghveshgmari whose name had been Chubrukiani before (Sumaisha is the part of the name “Samkhubi ” –in the Svan language). “Tamarsha – Ivchiani by name“ also moved to the village of Leshuki in Latali community from Tsena-Ghveshgmari, Gabisha Chartolani – to Mestia community, “Qulani” – to Free Svaneti and “Mamisha Jankhoteli” – to Lashkheti community (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 22).

To indicate “family name” the word “community” was used in Svaneti. B. Nizharadze wrote:

“The community was included families with the same name, descendants of the common ancestor. Members of one family name in every place, everywhere and every time despite the number of the generations, kept tight links with one another. For example: in Daiani’s Svaneti in the eight villages of Lashkheti community about 60 households of one family “Oniani” live far from one another. They pretend to be very close relatives, although they had been departed long before. The community of the Onianis is together in need. Chelidze from Lashkhoti can visit someone in Ushguli (Free Svaneti) with the same family name as if their ancestors had belonged to the same family tree not long ago. When Mushkudiani from Ushguli visits Lakhamula (the last community of Dadeshkeliani’s Svaneti), he certainly asks if there is anyone with the same family name and after seeing such a person, although they have met for the first time, Mushkudiani from Lakhamula treats him as his close relative. Jachvliani from Mulakhi (in Free Svaneti) is welcome to the place of a person with the same family name in the village of Tskhomari (Dadeshkeliani’s Svaneti). “Close relationships, respect between the people with the same family names, to be with each other in need is traditional for the whole Georgian people but it was more remarkable in the mountainous Georgia.

Regarding the Svan word for “temi” (community) indicating the family name, was originated from Greek language long ago, probably by the time when one family had definitely been one community (temi). It is known that nor the Georgian word for “gvari” (family name) is local. Nevertheless, there is an opinion of connecting this word with “gora” (hill), it is still obvious that it was originated from the Iranian language as stated by the linguists (M. Andronikashvili). The original Georgian word for family name “sakhli” (house) changed its content in the course of time.

Ushguli is notable in many ways. For example, there is a toponymy “Tushre Namzigv” which indicates about the people of Tusheti living here. The legend is interesting but it should be clarified when Tushi people could settle here. There is an opinion that “the location of Ushkuli to the northern border of Georgia where the several crossings gathered makes the opinion completely natural that both “Tamari’s Tsikhe (Fortress) and non-typical Svan towers were built by the central government of Georgia who possibly thought it necessary to put the Tushuri garison in this fortress (R. Kharadze, Al. Robakidze, Villages of Svaneti in Old Times. Tbilisi. 1964, p. 35).

There is also an opinion in scientific materials that “Ushguli gives us the most completed and typical form of the castle-house of Svaneti” (in the same place, p. 40). Besides, two different types of towers are fixed there. One of them which has the main characteristics of Svanuri Murqvami (tower) and another type of the tower different from the previous one is closer to the towers popular in the eastern Georgian mountains (Tusheti, Khevsureti) (in the same place, p. 41).

All the old houses of Ushguli (except castles), as a rule, had their towers and at the same time, Ushguli also had the common protective building. None of other communities (Khevi) did have such buildings in Above Bali Svaneti.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:01 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
It was mentioned above that Ushguli is distinguished with a number of churches. There are three churches in the village Zhibiani. The biggest of all is the church named after the Virgin. In this village in the inscription on the icon of Michael Archangel the village Tsena is mentioned, which is situated on the pass on the side of Tskheniskali. Six families lived in Tsena during the period of E. Takaishvili at the beginning of the XX century. The inscription on the icon of the Saviour seems interesting: “Saint Lord, have mercy upon Marushian and his son”. In E.Takaishvili’s opinion, it must be Marushian the son of Vardan to whom the Queen Tamar gave a position of “Chukhcharakhi” (p. 135). At present it is not important for us. The main thing is that the family name of Marushiani who were popular in the period of Georgian unification seems to be from Svaneti by origin. According to inscriptions, other Georgian feudal family names made a sacrifice to Ushguli church of the Virgin. For example, a bowl was donated by the prince Shoshita who definitely must be Shoshita the prince of Racha; a silver bowl was donated by the prince of Imereti Rostom Ghoghoberidze, a silver jug – by the prince of Racha Merab Tsulukidze (XVIII century), a silver cross – by Bezhan Lortkipanidze. Donation of the valuable church thing to church must not have been accidental by the Lortkipanidzes. Generally the family name of the Lortkipanidzes is mentioned in the XIV-XV centuries Svan writings: “ This letter was written by us Giorgi and Demetre Lortkipanidze and we from Khalde when we brought the icon from Tsveremi and if something happans between the Lortkipanidzes and the inhabitants of Khalde, we will not bring the icon or plead for mercy either” (Written Monuments of Svaneti, I, p.219). In this document the family name is given in the form of “Lortkipanidze”. In our opinion, the document points to the Svan origin of the Lortkipanidzes. According to Georgian traditions, they move their ancestors’ icon to their new place of their residence. The family name consists of two suffixes (-an + -dze). They bore the name “Lotkipani” (Lortkipani). After moving to the lowland and social rise the suffix “- dze” was added to their family name.

Among the donators of the silver bowl to the Ushguli Virgin church “Sekhnia Meipariani” is mentioned as well. In the late period neither Meiparianis lived in Ushguli community nor in the whole Svaneti. The Meiparianis lived in the Lechkhumi village of Orbeli. According to the narrative, They moved from Svaneti. The family of Meiparianis seems to have moved from Svaneti to Lechkhumi quite long ago. In the document of the XVI century we read: “Meipariani owes...”. The family name of Meiparianis, only in the form of Muipariani (“Vakhakhi Muipariani”) is mentioned in the XIII century chronicle of Svaneti in the village Gtseri (P. Ingorokva, p. 140).

In the village Chvibiani in Ushguli there was a small stone church. As for Chazhash, there were two churches and one Saint George’s church in the castle named after the Queen Tamar (E. Takaishvili, p. 151), the other was the church after the Saviour. In the XII-XIII centuries’ inscription of the Saviour’s icon we read the following: “Tsakhanelidze Vakhtang and his wife Khvashaqi”. Such a family name in Svaneti has not been approved. The icon must have been brought from the lowland. The family name is formed by two suffixes (-el + -dze) and is related to the toponymy of Tsakhan. The toponymy like this (the name of the village) – Tsakhani was in Samtskhe-Javakheti. The family name, as mentioned, is related to the village. There is an inscription on the cross of the same church: “Nasreti Virgin, have mercy on Ioane and his wife Taba and their sons” (p.158).

In the village Murqmeri there are two churches: “the Saviour” and “Saint Barbare”. In the inscription of the XII-XIII centuries’ icon of crussifiction we can read the following: “Christ the Saviour, remember me, in your heaven, me - Qveli Lominadze and my wife Rusudan and my children Vakhtang and their brothers” (E. Takaishvili, p. 174). It is obvious that this icon was brought to Svaneti from the west Georgia, too.

There are more than one narratives about the history of Svans and their life style. It is known that narratives written in Georgian mountainous parts depict historical realities in most cases. For example, a lot of princes tried to subdue the people of Ushguli but in vain. On the contrary, Usghuli people made it a rule “not to let any mounted prince or nobleman pass through their village. There are still some witnesses of this fact in Ushguli today. If any of the princes wanted to come to Ushguli they had to leave their horses at a distance of three kilometres from the village and had to walk to the village” (B. Nizharadze, p. 74). The fact that the princes of Ushguli Dadeshkelianis could not manage to conquer Above Bali Svaneti was considered by them as their merit. It is true that the Latali community, which bordered to Daeshkeliani’s Svaneti, were on the alert not to let the latter in Free Svaneti but as it seems, it took place several times anyway. “Puta Dadeshkeliani who was the ancestor of the present Dadeshkelianis found his way in the whole Svaneti and finally reached Ushguli and intended to subdue them. This intention cost him dearly; Ushguli people killed this daring man. They also killed Kvarkvare from the same family name. The narrative tells us so and there is a popular song about this matter in Ushguli up today (B. Nizharadze, II, pp. 74-75). When they killed Puta Dadeshkeliani there were six guests from Dvaleti in Ushguli. They had a gun without triggers with them. Guns were not used in Svaneti by then and everybody was examining it and asking them to explain how to use it. People from Dvaleti loaded it and said: “if you wanted to kill Puta, you could do it by this gun” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 76). Together with the social struggle given in this narrative, particularly interesting for us is also the fact that Svans remembered about the other parts of Georgia Dvaleti and its Inhabitants and that their relationship was frequent. It is remarkable that for Svans (Ushguli inhabitants) the “Dvalian” knife was also known.

According to the archive data of 1940, 23 households of Khardziani lived in the village Vichnashi of Kala community. The Khardzianis lived in the village Khe-Amrai, too (10 families). Kvardziani is one of the oldest Svanuri family names. It was mentioned more than once in the XIV-XV centuries Svan documents. In 1940 9 families of Gulbanis lived in the village Khe-Amrai. One household of Gulbani lived in Lalkhori as well (the Gulbanis and Gulbianis lived in Lower Svaneti, too. In the chronicles (of confessors) of the XIII century “Adashel Gulubiani” is mentioned (P. Ingorokva, p. 151). This particular Gulubiani must be the ancestor of the Gulbanis (the Gulbianis). One family of the Panganis and Chegemianis lived in the village Khe-Amrai. The Chegemianis were in Khalde (4 households) and Iprali (1 household). In 1940 there were nine households of Gasvianis and three households of Jokhadzes in Khalde. Also the Kochkianis and Choplianis lived in Khalde. In the historical documents of Svaneti the ancestors of Jokhadzes are registered as the Jokhianis. For example, “Purtukh Jokhiani and his brother Sargis are mentioned in the village of Tskhmareti” (P. Ingorokva, II, p. 143); also: G~. Jokhiani”, “Bendani Jokhiani”, “Gamrekeli Jokhiani” (p. 144); “K~ke Jokhiani”, “Mr~m Jokhiani” (p. 147). 11 households of Margvelanis lived in the Kala community village Lalkhori. The Margvelanis also lived in Davberi (Duberi) – 6 households and in Iprali (9 households). The Margvelanis are first mentioned in the documents at the beginning of the XIV century. It is reported that the ancestor of Margvelanis moved to Kala from the northern Caucasus, present Karachai territory. The Margvelanis had lived in Mestia since the first half of the XIV century (in the writings of that period a witness “Margvelani Partsman” is mentioned – “Historical Documents of Svaneti, I, p. 172). By the XIV century the Turkish- speaking people had not been settled yet in the territories of present Karachai and Balkaria . 6 households of Dadvanis lived in the village Lalkhori. four (4) households of this family lived in the village Iprali. The Dadvanis are mentioned in the documents of the XVII-XVIII centuries. In 1940 in the Kala community village of Iprili 7 families of the Pirvelis were registered. Also the inhabitants of Lalkhori were three families of Gamkrelidzes who certainly moved from Racha.

As it seems the rotation of population took place in Kala. For example, in “The Chronicles of Svaneti Gathering” in Kalashi (i.e. Kala) the Mejvarianis, Mushkudianis, Khazalianis, Kvirkvelianis, Ghurmutianis, Ubilianis, Apakianis, Akhshianis, Adaianis and Karchianis are mentioned. Out of the families mentioned above only the Mushkudianis live in Svaneti at present. Some of the family names (Mejvariani, Akhshiani) evidently disappeared completely. Regarding the Khazalianis, Apakianis, Kvirkvelianis, Adaianis, Karchianis, they moved to Samegrelo. The Khazalias, Apakidzes (Apakias), Kvirkvelias, Adanaias, Karchavas who live in Samegrelo today are the ancestors of above mentioned families. The same can be said about the Ubilianis who are bearing the surname of Ubilava, the part of which stayed in Svaneti though and their surname was changed phonetically (Ubiliani - Vibliani).

The distinguished village in Kala community was Khalde where Russians committed a tragedy in 1876. Before destroying the village there were 19 households there (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 193). “Each inhabitant used to have 1-2 two-storey houses made of stone and lime and the same number of towers respectively. Dwellers of Khalde were proud, flexible and hard-working people. They had a remarkable appearance and had no match in feasting, competing with others, singing, round dancing in whole Svaneti. There were four family names in the whole village: Gasviani, Jokhadze, Kochkiani and Chopliani (B. Nizharadze, p. 193). The Kochkianis live in Mulaqi at present. By that period a lot of dwellers from Khalde had moved to Lechkhumi.

A little below the village Davberi, Kvirike and Ivlita’s church was built on the hill. Svans call it Lagurka. According to E. Takaishvili, Kala church was the most principal praying place in the whole Svaneti. It means the same for Svaneti as the Delphian fane for the whole Greece. It unites Svans divided into communities as the Delphian fane united different republics of Greece” (p. 178). Although every community in Svaneti had its own main prying place but they regarded Kala “Lagurka” or “Saint Kvirike and Ivlita’s” church as the most powerful. They used to preserve an extraordinary icon of Byzantine art which they called “Shalian”. That was the reason why the most severe criminals were forced to swear an oath before this icon. There were no examples in the past when Svan did not admit his guilt while making an oath” (E. Takaishvili, p. 179). “In Svans’ opinion, Shaliani was Svan. Once the king of Imereti called one hundred Svans to him and ordered them to scythe the fields of Geguti. Shaliani offered the king that he would do that alone in the same period of time which he allocated to one hundred Svans but in return the King had to give to him the thing he would ask for. The king agreed. Shaliani started his work and finished it in due time. The King kept his promise and Shaliani got the Kala icon in return. He wrept the icon in the sheep’s skin and set off Svaneti. The dwellers of Kala community learnt that Shaliani was carrying the valuable thing with him and decided to rob him. They attacked him on the way, killed him and gained the icon. But they did not know what to do with the icon, where to place it. Therefore, they yoked two bulls, put a log on the yoke, fastened the icon on it and let the bulls go in such a way without any direction. The bulls crossed the river Enguri, went up the hill and stopped at the top of the very particular place where there is the Kvirike Church now. The Svans built a monastery on that place and the icon of Shaliani has been kept there since then” (E. Takaishvili, p. 180). It is notable that the Svans had more than one song and church song and some of the anthems and songs were dedicated only to this church. They were not performed in other churches. It was exactly in Lagurka at the church of Saint Kvirike and Ivlita where 2 000 Svans swore an oath before the tragedy of Khalde. At that moment Giorgi Pangan brought out from the church the adorable icon of Shaliani for the whole Svaneti. Everybody made an oath before the icon that they would not betray the common cause. As a token of this two men took hold of the ends of one stick and went under the icon erected above the stick.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:02 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Then next community was the community of Ipari. There are the following villages in Ipari community: Nakipari (not shown on the family records of 1886), Zegani, Bogreshi, Ipari, Tsvirmi, Adishi, Ieli. According to E. takaishvili “Tsvirmi and Adishi comprised the independent communities in the past”. Al. Charkviani mentions the communities of Adishi and Tsvirmi separately, too. Adishi was a one-village community, whereas Tsvirmi community included 6 villages (Tviberi, Zagari, Lamoldi, Chibani, Svipi and Nesgaubani). Al. Charkviani separates Ieli community (villages: Nesgubani, Askardi, Atsi). Under the family lists of 1886, 133 households in Ipari village community (1023 heads), which equals to average 7.7 heads per household. Tsvirmi was the biggest village where 38 households live there (265 heads), in Ipari – 32 households (242 heads), in Zegani – 24 households (169 heads), in Adishi – 13 households (134 heads), in Ieli – 14 households (142 heads), in Bogresha – 12 households (77 heads).

According to data of 1940, 25 families of the Pirvelis lived in the Ipari community village of Zegani; twenty households of Pirveli lived in the village Nakipari. The Gulbanis were notable by the number of their family names (26 households in Zegani, 20 households in Nakipari). As was mentioned above, their ancestors in the XIII century were mentioned as Gulubianis. The Khvistanis lived in that village, too (20 households in Zegani). In 1940 seven households of the Kordzaias lived in Zegani as well. The Kordzaias also lived in Bogreshi (6 households) and Tsvirmi (9 households). In the documents of the first half of the XIV century the Kordzaias are mentioned as the Kordzianis.The Khorguanis are the dwellers of Bogreshi (5 households). In the XIII-XIV centuries the ancestors of Khorguanis lived in the Becho village of Doli. By that time “Tvalmindi Khorguani”, “Gvangva Khverguani”, “Nana Khverguani”, “Ataraji Khverguani”, “G~ Khverguani” had been registered there (P. Ingorokva, II, pp. 149,151). The ancestors of the Gulbanis moved to Ipari from this vallage, too. As it seems, it was not a rare case for the individual families to move from Below Bali Svaneti to Above Bali Svaneti and it must have been related to the migration (flow) of population from principality (Dadeshkeliani’s Svaneti to Free (without princes) Svaneti.

The Avalianis are dwellers of the Village Bogreshi in Ipari community (24 households in 1940). The family name of Avalianis is also the oldest in Svaneti. The oldest family name is Kaldani, too. They lived in the Ipari community village of Bogreshi (10 households). They also live in the village Tskhumari (12 households). There is a narrative about the common origin of Svan Kaldanis and the Kardavas from Samegrelo. The forefathers of the Kaldanis are mentioned repeatedly in the XIII-XIV centuries “Cronicles of Svaneti Gathering”. “G~ Kaldiani, “Nene Kaldiani”, “Shalva Kaldiani”, “Mariam Kaldiani” are mentioned in the village Lalveri (P. Ingorokva, pp. 118-119). In the villages of Bogreshi and Tsvirmi lived 19 hoseholds of the Panganis (1940). The following families can also be mentioned in Tsvirmi: the Pitskhelianis (13 households), Kipianis (6 households), Giglebianis (6 households), Bedianis (2 households), Tamlianis (8 households), Kveblianis (4 households), Mukvanis (3 households), Khviblianis (12 households. In Bogreshi – 7 households), Samsianis (13 households). According to the ethnographical data, the Samsianis from the village Ieli and the Ansianis from the village Nakra have the same origin. “When they are in trouble or have merriment they go to each other. Nobody can remember their marriage to each other”. The ansianis must be the Asianis mentioned in the “Cronicles (of confessors) of Svaneti” (P. Ingorokva, p. 155).

There were churches after the Saviour in the villages Tsvirmi and Adishi; in the vallages Nakipari, Adishi, Ieli – Saint George’s churches. There was the following inscription on the icon of Michael Archangel: “Saint George of Zghuderi, have mercy on your decorator Jonarsi Asatiani”, which apparently points to the Svan origin of the Asatianis from the beginning.

In the opinion of E. Takaishvili and Al. Charkviani, Muzhali and Mulakhi are separate communities. Other ethnographical materials say that they belong to one and the same community (Mulakh-Muzhali). Muzhali community involved three villages: Chvabiani, Zhabeshi and Chaldashi (Tsaldashi). We can name the following villages from Mulakhi (Mulaqi) community: Machvdiari, Cholashi, Zhamushi, Artskheli, Lakhiri, Murshkeli, Ghvebra, Zardlashi. Zardlashi was integrated into the village Ghvebra. According to the family records of 1886, in the community of Mulakhi (Mulakh-Muzhali) there lived 151 households (1296 heads) which meant average 8.6 heads per households. Chola was the biggest village (30 households, 232 heads). Next were Chvabiani (21 househods, 171 heads), Lakhirii (21 househods, 194 heads), Artskheli (18 househods, 134 heads), Mushkeri (16 househods, 105 heads), Zhabeshi (14 househods, 123 heads), Zhamushi (10 househods, 109 heads), Zardla (9 househods, 115 heads), Ghvebra (7 househods, 67 heads), Tsalda (5 househods, 46 heads).

Some extended families lived in the villages of Mulakhi community by 1940: the Giganis (34 households, village Chabiani); Gujejiani (33 households, in Chola, Zhabe, Chabiani); the Margianis (54 households, Artskheli, Chabiani, Kvemo (Lower) Mulakhi); Kaldani (village Zhamu. 13 households); Kochkiani (10 families, in the village Chola); Shervashidze (13 households. in the village Chola); Devdariani (10 households. in Chola); Zhorzholiani (31 households. Artskheli); Jachvliani (14 households, in Chola); Dadvani (17 households, Kvemo (Lower) Mulakhi); Ioseliani (30 households, Lakhiri); Naveriani (36 households, Zhamu and Zhabe); Kurdiani (24 households, Murshkeli); Beriani (10 households, Kvemo (Lower) Mulakhi); Gabliani (9 households, Kvemo (Lower) Mulakhi); Tsipiani (5 households, Kvemo (Lower) Mulakhi); Mibchuani (3 households, in Zardla); Mchedliani (4 households); Zurebiani 6 households. Lalkhori and Tsaldashi); Mitiani (2 households. Lakhiri); Gulbani (8 households); Chekhani (8 households. Chabiani); Gvidani (6 households. Lakhiri).

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:02 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
According to ethnographical data, the forefathers of the Naverianis moved from Kutaisi to Svaneti. “They had their church Lamaria and even now they bake one special small bread to sacrifice to the name of Lamaria”. Some of the names mentioned above are stated in the old documents of Svaneti. For example, in the cronicles of the XIII-XIV centuries the following names are mentioned: “I~oane Kurdiani”, “Guangva Kurdiani”, “Botso Kurdiani” (but in mentioned centuries they are registered in the village Lha of Pari community)’ “Basila Jachvineliani” (Jachvliani) – in the village og Tskhmari; “G~i Gabliani” (p. 144).­ The Margianis are mentioned in the documents of the first half of the XIV century and XV century by the name Maregiani, the Ioselianis – in the first half of the XIV century. In the same “Cronicle” the name of Giganis is mentioned too-Duda Gigiani butonly in the community of Etseri. Zhorzholianis are also mentioned in the XIV century (Historical Documents of Svaneti, I, p. 192). In the document of the second half of the XV century a witness Dadvani by name is mentioned. In the writing of the XV century there are the following family names from Mulakhi: the Ioselianis, the Chedelianis and the Margianis.

Mestia community comprised the unity of four communities. They are: Seti, Lekhtagi, Lanchvali and Laghami. In the family records of 1886 there are only two villages in Mestia community (Laghami and Mestia). Totally in Mestia community there were 101 households (860 heads) (8.6 heads on average per household). Today the following families live in Mestia: the Barlianis (17 households); the Gvarlianis (26 households); the Palianis (5 households – in Laghami, 14 – in Lanchvali); the Khojelanis; the Nigurianis; the Ratianis (41 households); the Khergianis (70 households); the Khvistanis; the Goshtelianis (15 households); the Japaridzes, the Mushkudianis, the Chartolanis (35 households in Lekhtagi); the Nakanis, the Mchedlanis (12 households).

The Gvarlianis from Mestia and the Gvarmianis from Nakra are of the same origin. Members of these two families never got married to each other. Svan Gvarmianis and Gvarlianis regarded Abkhazian Gvaramias as their relatives. Some years ago the Gvarmianis convened an gathering and invited the Gvarlianis and Abkhzian Gvarmias as well to the gathering.

There were five families who prayed for Mestian “Jgragi” (Saint George): the Mitvlianis, the Ratianis, the Mchedlianis, the Palianis and the Nigurianis. The Mitvlianis do not exist any more. They disappeared completely. In the documents of the XIV-XV centuries the people by this name are mentioned more than once (Written Monuments of Svaneti, I, pp. 165, 166, 172, 173). “They were individual “communities”, but worshipped one and the same cross ”. The banner of the whole Svaneti “Lemi” had to be brought out by these four families. Other families did not have a right to do it. Only the following day the Japaridzes had a right to hold it. “When Lemi became shabby, it was sewed again by the woman from the Kurdiani family name who was the wife of Japaridze. Therefore, they gained a right to carry “Lemi” the following day.

According to the documents from the first half of the XIV century, “Goshkoteliani Azag” and “Goshgoteliani Tsitsman” are mentioned (Written Monuments of Svaneti, I, pp. 109, 111). The surname of Goshketeliani (Goshgoteliani) changed its form phonetically. They bear the name of Goshteliani at present. By narratives, the Goshtelianis are Saviarians. The Japaridzes are thought to be from Racha. There is an epitaph on the tombstone of some Palianis in Mestia “Setieli”. The graveyard of destroyed Miltvlianis was occupied by the Chartolanis. Only the part of the Palianis is Setieli by the root. Setiels nursed their baby with the Palianis.They fell on them to kill the baby of Setielis. But the wife of Paliani gave her child to them; they recognaized the baby and returned him to her. Setielis adopted a name of Palianis. According to the ethnographical data, the Japaridzes experienced failure. Once they expanded, were powerful. The community warned them several times. Then they were destroyed. Only one survived; Naveriani saved him from burning. Bringing the Japaridzes to Mestia is assigned to the Chartolanis. The Japaridzes as the dwellers of Svaneti are first mentioned in the XV century in the form of the Japarianis. The Khergianis are also mentioned in the XV century. The Chartolanis are stated in the documents of the XVII-XVIII centuries. From the documents of the XIV-XV centuries: “In the inscriptions of one of the series of Mestian Otkhtavi (Gospel) the Japaridzes, particulalrly some the representatives of this family are mentioned: Mamisa Japaridze (or Mjapariani), Piranteli, Ivane; Japaridze Kakhaberi and his sons Aslan and Taibula ; Pirantel Japaridze and his children Dodel, Ivane and Aslan. It is clear that this family was prioritized in comparison with others” (M. Berdzenishvili. Documents of Svaneti As a Source for the Social History of Svaneti – “Georgian Source Study”, II, 1968, p. 108). In Lanchvali (at present north-eastern district of Mestia) there is a church which is named after the Virgin and according to the narrative, its builder was Papi-Chartulari. In the opinion of arts critics, this church belongs to the XIII-XIV centuries and was reconstructed and decorated fundamentally in the XV century” (p.109). The author cites from the inscription of the Mestian Otkhtavi (Gospel) the following: “Japaridze and Ioseliani belong to those names whose blood was very valuable” (p.119).

“Saint George’s church (Jgragi) in Ughlavi was built by brothers Anton and Michael Umpriani (XIV century). The Umprianis live in this village even today. Both the church and the curchyard belong only to them. The church of the Saviour in the village Laghami (Mestia region) was built and painted by Shalva Kirkishliani (XIV century); The Mukhuri church after Archangel in Lenjeri was built and painted by Iveldiani (XV-XVI centuries). Churchmen (lakhmi mare) are the Ildanis even now” (M. Chartolani. Monuments of History and Culture in Svaneti. – Issues: “Svaneti II”, Tbilisi, 1979, p. 108).

“According to the available data, Svaneti represents the picture of the flong past process of family mixture. It is quite clear even from the example of Mestia. Out of 52 households in Seti 21 belong to the Japaridzes., 4 – to the Chedlianis, 9 – to the Nakanis, 6 – to the Mushkudianis, 8 to the Nigurianis, each – to Bardiani, Paliani, Nizharadze and Parjiani. Lanchvali depicts the same picture of family mixture, too where out of 54 households 17 are Khergianis, 10 Palianis, 10 Ratianis, 5 Margianis, 4 Goshtelianis, 3 Nigurianis, 2 Kakhberidzes, 1 Chartolani and 2 Nakanis. Out of 18 households in Lekhtagi there are 8 Chartolanis, 8 Khergianis and 2 Japaridzes” (R. Kharadze, Al. Robakidze. Villages in Svaneti in the Past, Tbilisi, 1964, p. 30).

According to one of the narratives, the Khergianis came from the heads of the rivers Teberdi and Kubani (the area of present-day Karachai). Four brothers sheltered themselves in Svaneti: Khergiani, Chkhvimiani and Margveliani (the name of the fourth brother is forgotten). The brothers arrived in Chubekhevi and settled there. Chkhvimiani declared himself to be the prince of his brother, as a result of which they escaped from him. Chkhvimiani stayed in the village Chubekhevi, Khergiani went to Mestia and Margveliani settled in Kala (R. Kharadze, Al. Robakidze, pp. 30-31). These three brothers comprised the kin units – Chkhvimlianis-Margvelanis-Khergianis. The realization of the common origin determines the goodwill between them which is revealed by welcoming and helping each other, although this relationship does not consider the sphere of marriage or revenge ” (see the same place, p 31).

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:03 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
There is one more interesting detail about the family names in Mestia: in the inscription on the icon of the Saviour “Giorgi Chartulari” is mentioned. It means that the Chartolanis were registered (were called) as Chartularis as well (E. Takaishvili, p. 299).

The next village of Above Bali Svaneti is Lenjeri community which like the other communities comprised the unity of several villages. They are the following: Nesguni, Lemsia, Kashveti, Lashtkhveri, Kaeri, Soli, Kheshkili. According to data of 1886, 70 households (668 heads) lived in Lenjeri village community. 17 households lived in Lemsia and 17 – in Nesguni (139 heads and 183 heads accordingly). There were 14 households (154 heads) in Kashveti, 12 households (119 heads) in Lashtkhveri, 7 households (54 heads) in Soli, 3 households (54 heads) – in Kaeri. E. Takaishvili points one more village – Mukheli (it seems to be one of the districts of Lashtkhveri). There used to be the church of Michael Archangel. It is interesting that the king of Kakheti Davit donated the bell to the Lashtkhveri Archangel: “We, the king and patron of Kakheti David sacrificed the church bell to you – the Saint Archangel of Lashtakhuri to bless our days and perform our reign”. Above mentioned indicates the close ties between the different parts of Georgia and in this case, between the parts which are absolutely far away from each other.

The biggest family in Lenjeri was Guledani. According to data of 1940, 86 households of Guledanis lived there. The Pilpanis were 60 households, the Khaptanis – 25 households, the Udesianis – 19 households, the Jachvanis 19 households, the Merlanis – 28 households, the Shukvanis – 69 households, the Maghedanis – 3 households, the Meshvelianis – 2 households, the Ildanis – 5 households, the Naverianis – 10 households, the Gigdelianis – 4 households. There also lived the Tsipianis, the Japaridzes and the Khorguanis.

As the narrative says, Svan Guledanis and Megreli Gulordavas originally had one brother. “Wherever we meet each other we are as one family”. It is remarkable that according to Svan Guledanis, they come from Samegrelo, but the Gulordavas think that they are from Svaneti. There are four Samkhubis (fraternities or family branches) in the family of Guledanis: “Gulesha”, “Bekurzasha”, “Titisha” and “Kausha”. The dwellers of Nesguni mainly pray for “Jgrag”. Besides, there is “Matskhovari” (the Saviour), “Iel”, “Pust”. The Guledanis moved from Etseri to Lenjeri. Indeed in “The Cronicle of Svaneti Gathering” (XIII-XIV centuries) “Ivane Gulediani”, “G~i Gulediani” are mentioned in Etseri (P. Ingorokva, pp. 133, 137). No narrative is kept in the family about the reasons of moving from Lenjeri to Etseri. When they settled in Lenjeri the Maghedanis had lived there. According to the narrator, “the Maghedanis have the same links with the Marghanias as we have with the Gulordavas. The Maghedanis go to the Saviour and Ieli church”. In the XV century the phonetical option of the Maghedianis was “Magheldiani” (Written Monuments of Svaneti, I, p.186).

The village Soli was mainly inhabited by the Khaptanis, Khorguanis and Gigdelianis. In “The Chronicles of Svaneti Gathering” of the XIII-XIV centuries the Khaptanis are registered as Khaptani: “Shalva Khaptiani” (P. Ingorokva, p. 153). The main family name in Lemsia is Shukvani (Shukuani). The main inhabitants of Kashueti are the Pilpanis. Tsipiani moved here from Mulakhi.

The Vibianis had lived in Nesguni before but they disappeared. They even had an individual tower. They did not let their cattle go in the morning or evening without milking them. Every family in Lenjeri had brought one cart of logs each and put around the tower. “They made a fire and burned down it. They were a big family and did not think anyone could match them”.

The Ildans from Lenjeri were registered as Elediani in the chronicles of the XIII-XIV centuries, and as Mildanis in the XVIII century (Written Monuments of Svaneti, I, p. 293).

In the village of Lemsia, according to the ethnographical data, the Merlanis settled from the beginning, then the Shukvanis who migrated from Becho. Their church “Guls Gabriel” was in the village Guli. When they moved from Becho the Shukvanis took their icons with them and sacrificed it to this icon. “The Shukvanis had not lived in Becho from the beginning and they had a fighting there against the princes Charkvianis; they were princes themselves, too. When they lost this war they moved to Becho on the very top of the hill. Apparently, they could not stay there long and moved to this place. The Shukvanis used to be the Ghoghelianis before and then they changed their family name”. The family of the Ghoghelianis does not live in Svaneti any more. They are inhabitants of Lechkhumi. According to the chronicles of the XIII-XIV centuries, the Ghoghelianis were widely settled in Svaneti. For example, “Veshag Ghogheliani” lived in Gheshderi, “G~i Ghogheliani”, “Mich~l Ghogheliani”, “G~i Ghogheliani”, “Inai Ghogheliani”, “Thathe Ghogheliani”, “I~e Ghogheliani”, “Mariam Ghogheliani”, “Varedan Ghogheliani”, “Kakubai Ghogheliani” lived in the Pari community village of Mai... (P. Ingorokva, pp. 122-124). The Naverianis moved to Lenjeri from Mulakhi. Here they have their family churches and churchyards “Matskhovari” (the Saviour). Regarding the holiday Kashvetoba, besides the inhabitants of Lenjeri, dwellers of Latali participated, too. It is remarkable that it was necessary to bring the bull’s hip from Ilori chuch Abkhazia, precisely from Samurzakano. In Lenjeri community first the Ildanis settled (in Lashdghveri). In other villages they adopted the surname Mildani.

The ancestors of the Babluanis moved to Kvemo (Low) Svaneti from Kheshveli village of Lenjeri region. It turned out, that families bearing the different Swedish family names used to live in Kheshveli. Together with the Babluanis there also lived the Ketganis. To this very day the Babluanis visit Lenjeri in order to pray there. Kheshveli population had been depopulated. “There is a place in Kheshveli - named Gagani; We do not know, whether it is a family name or a first name. The place is also called “Gagani’s Jump” (in the Svan language: “Gagana Niskin”). Gagani was on the other side of the river. Some men fell on his cattle and took it away. The dog ran to its master to drop a hint at him. Gagani had to jump over the river and therefore the place was called “Gagana Niskin”. Gagani survived, ran after the attackers and got i his cattle back. The kidnappers appeared to be from Mulakhi.

The Barvanis were resided in Kheshvili. Gagvani is also a family name. They fought because of a woman. All of them were abolished and there movables and immovables were divided between the Kurdianis from Mulakhi; Latali and Lenjeri took possession of their land. Kashveti and Lashgverdi population migrated to Kheshveli. The first migrants were the Ildanis. They are from Ilori. The newcomers were insulted and evicted, but one of them came back and settled there and the present Ildanis are his descendants.

Big family names of Lenjeri are divided into fraternities (“Samkhubi”, “Lamkhubi”-in Svan language), but as for the Maghedanis and Tsipianis, which are smaller family names, are not divided into fraternities as they stopped to give the generation. According to a legend, the Ildanis are cursed by “Davi” – “forest man.”

In the XIII – XIV centuries the Tsipianis: “ Akunela Tsipiani”, Thathe Tsipiani”, “G~ Tsipiani” resided in Etseri (P. Ingorokva, p.137, 147). Earlier, in Soli village lived the Tvirianis. Only there tower survived intact. The Khaptanis live on their dwelling now. “These Tvirianis are today’s Torias from Samegrelo”.

According to the legend, the Nakanis, who live in Mestia nowadays, are the migrants from Kurashi village, Etseri. They live in Seti, Mestia. The Nakanis have there ancestral church – “Khosha Jgrag” in Kurashi village, Etseri. Accordinng to the narrator Pilippe Nakani, “We seldom go to Kurashi church lately in comparison with our ancestors.” Today the Khorguanis live on the former living quarters of the Nakanis. The Nakanis had sold their patrimony to the Khorguanis. The reason of the Nakanis migration was “the murder of one of the Dadeshkelianis committed by our ancestors, whereupon there was no chance for us to stay there.” In the XIII – XIV centuries the “Chronicle of Svaneti Gathering”, the present Nakanis ancestors are registered as the Nakianis: “M~rm Nakiani”, “Khalina Nakiani”, “Abesalom Nakiani”, “Gvangva Nakiani”, “Tamtar Nakiani” “Natai Nakiani”; “Lela Nakiani, “Amadai Nakiani” (P. Ingorokva, p.133, 134, 135, 136, 140).

According to ethnographical data, Nakani never marries Chkhvimiani or Goshuani . They are of the same origin. “We must not marry each other”. As it turns out, the Chkhvimiani family name is divided in two branches. One of them is related to the Chartolanis and another - to the Nakanis. The Nakanis are related to “Kansavshas” – Chkhvimianis, residents of Gheshteri. Another Chkhvimianis’ name (“Samkhubi”) is “Padlar” and they belong (related to) to the Chartolanis. The Nakanis consist of three “Samkhubis”, they are offsprigs of three brothers: “Giunusha”, “Kubaisha”, “Gelusha”. The Chkhvimianis and the Goshuanis, both are the Kansavshas”. The Nakanis had five Murqvams (towers) in Mestia.

The last community of BalsUpper Svaneti is Latali community. Its villages are: Enashi, Matskhvarishi, Shqaleri, Kvanchianari, Laheli, Sgobuli, Lakhushti, Sidianari, Ipkhi, Leshuki, Namkvan-Nagrali, Lelbagi. E. Takaishvili wrote:” Latali is one of the best communities of Free Svaneti; It is the strongest and richest, because Enguri Gorge is the widest there. The Latali people have many common ploughing areas and forests. The Latalians are considered as the bravest people. They were the last who accepted the Russian citizenship (E. Takaishvili, p. 337).

According to 1886 household lists, there were 121 households (995 heads) in Latali society by that time. Enashi was the most densely populated village (35 households, 253 heads). 20 households (188 heads) – in Matskhvarishi, 14 households (138 heads) – in Kvanchianari, 10 households (96 heads) – in Ipkhi, 10 households (85 heads) – in Lechukvi, 9 households (39 heads) - in Lakhushti, 7 households (heads) – in Shqaleri, 6 households (39 heads) - in Sidianari, 4 households (26 heads) - in Lahili, 4 households (33 heads) – in Lami.

According to 1940 data, Latali society was consisted of the following family names: Asumbani (4 households in Lakhushti); Pirtskhelani (4 households in Lakhushti); Kvanchiani (3 households in Lakhushti, 15 households Ipkhi, 14 households in Latali, 19 households in Kvanchianari); In Ienashi lived: The Parjianis (10 households); The Tseredianis (11families); The Charkvianis (2 families); The Girgvlianis (10 households); 10 households of the Girgvlianis’ belonged to Ipkhi as well. There were 14 households of the Girgvlianis (Gurgvliani) in Matskhvarishi. The other family names of Latali society could also be mentioned here. These are: the Abdelanis (11 households), the Nansqanis (9 households), the Subelianis and the Gvichianis (23 households), the Ivechianis (15 households), the Sidianis (3 households), the Paikelanis and the Tamlianis (6 households), Stepliani, Chamgeliani, Khvibliani. From these family names, in the XIII – XIV centuries the “Chronicle (of Confessors) of Svaneti” are recorded: the Tseredianis (“Tserediani from Vani” – p. 124), the Ivechianis (“Djulaba Ivechiani”, “Dzadzu Ivachiani” – p. 155), the Abdelanis (“G~i Abdalani – p.147), the Charkvianis (“Mik~l Shargviani” – p. 148).

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:04 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
In the documents of XVI – XVII centuries are mentioned: “The Kvanchianis, the Paikelanis; We meet family name of the Parjianis in the document of the XIV century. According to R. Kharadze, the family name of the Pardjianis consists of two branches: Nuasher and Datuar. The Nuasheris make comparatevily powerful group than Datuars, therefore they consider themselves as descendants of those ancient Pardjianis. Whereas they count Datuars progeny of the Datuliani family who bought the name of Parjiani from them later on.The Datuars strongly object to this concept and from their part, are blaming the Nuasheris in buying the name. The given example is just one out of a hundred as, in almost all big family names, which were divided into “Samkhubis” a long time ago and their common ancestor is practically lost by now, the Samkhubis in most cases, consider each other as representatives of other weak families. As for buying and changing names in Svaneti, it is a notorious fact; It was resulted, either from the tradition of taking revenge, or because of weakening the family name. The responsibilities concerning blood relations and related regulations in cases of marriages are not characteristic for the Svan families (R. Kharadze, p. 17).

R. Kharadze’s concept regarding the Svan family names is undoubtedly very interesting, but we can’t agree that branches of the family name (“Samkhubis”) are mostly of different origin. Of course it is without question, that there are a lot of cases of mixing two family names in Svaneti, when a weak family joins a strong one, but it does not represent the fact that, it was a general phenomenon. But it is true, that sometimes the “Samkhubis” had different ancestors. As for buying names, we do not consider that as a real fact, since there has not been a single real case of buying a name. No one knows to whom, or what, or how much was paid. (Should they have to pay to every family representative, or only to the head of the family (“Makhvshi” – in the Svan language). Or they might have brought it to the family chapel?). In this case we have to deal with the similar event as in the mountainous regions of the east Georgia – mixing, joining or artificial relationship of weak and small family names with strong family names, which was revealed by carrying out only a similar ritual in the praying place. This event also meant strengthening of powerful and big families, as well as finding protectors for weak social units (weak family names). In one’s time, this event served as one of the stimulus for destroying tribal relations and transmitting to the territorial community relations. Of course it is true, that the representatives of one of the family names, i.e. descendants of the same ancestors could not marry each other, only in case if the representatives of family name branches (“Samkhubis”) were of different origin. Thus, in conjugal questions, families had both, blood relation responsibilities and related regulations. In this sphere, the rules in Svaneti were the same as all over Georgia.

In Latali community (temi) the Girgvliani family name has only one Samkhubi.

In Latali the family name of Charkvianis and their former dwellings were very remarkable. The difference becomes more vivid by the example of the dwellings of the Charkvianis from Latali. It is easy to notice, that they differ from other houses in Latali not only by their size, but also by their location. (R. Kharadze, Al. Robakidze p. 25). “There are five former dwellings of the Charkviani family in Latali. These are: Gigbash, Zagrar , Gilian, Chirdilashi and Lakhushd. All of them are situated separately from the settlement and distinguish territorially from the rest of the settlement” (p. 26). The tendency of the separate setttlement should have been caused by the fact that they were socially promoted by then.

It occurred that the kings of Kakheti had contributed the bell to Latali as well. “ We, the king Alexander, son of the king Leon, present this bell for praying service in your sacred church of prophet Iona from Latali, 1600” (E. Takaishvili, p. 337). According to E. Takaishvili, Matskhvarishi village was distinguished in Latali community. We can find wooden houses here, which are very rare in Svaneti. The village church is built in honor of Matskhovari (the Saviour). The name of the village Matskhovrishi is derived from this word. There was a Silver chain fastened to Matskhovari (the Saviour) icon with the following inscription on a separate plate. The inscsription made in Mkhedruli reads as follows: “ I, Kaikhosro Chikovani, am making this small contribution to Our Matskhovari (the Saviour) Latali church for saving my sinful soul “. “This Kaikhosro Chikovani should have been the same Kaikhosro Chikovani that was represented, together with his wife whose maiden name was Laskhishvili, on the frescos of Nakuraleshi Church, in the XVII century (E. Takaishvili, p. 356). It is not surprising so far as the Chikovanis are originally from Svaneti and in spite of the fact that they do not live there recently, they try not to consign to oblivion the old chapels of their ancestors. There are more than one Chikovani mentioned in the XIII-XIV centuries “Chronicle (of confessors) of Svaneti”: “M~rm” Chikovani”, “G~i”Chikovani” … (p. 134, 137) When they moved from Svaneti to Lechkhumi, is unknown, evidently a long time ago. Where did they become socially promoted, on their old or new dwelling place?

In Saint George’s Church of Lahili village, in Latali, icon of Archangel Gabriel bears the following inscription: “Oh, Saint Archangel of Mukheri, glorify the kings Bagrationi, and Dadiani, and the noblemen and the whole Georgia, and the whole Latali with its Sani and Khevi, and bless Laili village that did build you and all souls who seeks your protection” (E. Takaishvili, p. 364). E. Takaishvili claims that the age date of this inscription, which has a great importance not only for Svaneti history study, but for Georgian history as a whole, is the XIII – XIV centuries. Through this document, the Svans accentuate that Svaneti is an integral part of the united Georgia and they ask Saint Archangel to reflect glory on the kings of the united Georgia.

Let us proceed to the study of Billow-bali Svaneti, or as it is called otherwise Sabatono - principality (Dadeshkeliani’s) Svaneti. The first such community is Becho here. Becho community is also represents the unity of several villages: Tebishi, Mazeri, Bagvdanari, Guli, Tetnashi, Nashthkoli, Chorkhudi, Ushkhvanari, Chkidanari, Doli, Kartvani. According to 1886 household lists, there were 88 households (699 heads) in Becho society by then. Almost all the villages were too small. Only in Mazeri lived 27 families (191 heads) and in Ushkhvanari were 19 households (142 heads). In the rest of the villages there was the following situation: Dili (9 households, 96 heads), Kartvani (9 households, 83 heads), Tebishi (7 households, 41 heads), Chkidanari (5 households, 63 heads), in Guli (3 households, 21 heads), Nashthkali (3 households, 14 heads), Bagvdanari (2 families, 15 heads), Tetnashi (2 families, 12 heads), Chokhuli (2 families, 21 heads).

We can list the following family names living in Becho. These are: the Gabuldanis (according to 1940 data, 16 households),the Kvitsianis ( 76 households), the Khorguanis ( 15 households), the Kvanchianis (7 households), the Viblianis ( 5 households), the Ushkhvanis ( 9 households), the Shamprianis (6 households), the Vezdenis (10 households), the Jamdeliani (6 households), the Dadeshkelianis ( 3 households), the Goshuanis (9 households), the Kaldanis ( 4 households), the Aprasidzes ( 3 households), the Tsalanis (3 households), the Argvlianis ( 3 households), Berchliani (1household), Khardziani (1 household).

According to the “Chronicle of Svaneti Gathering, “ Gabuldani is one of the oldest family names in Svaneti, and its phonetic version – Gabeldani (“Amuna Gabeldani”, “Ruchag Gabeldani,” “Dzadzu Gabeldiani”, “Neke Gabeldiani”, “G~i Gabeldiani”) is registered in historical documents in Doli village in Becho (P. Ingorokva, 149, 151).

In the XIII century, in Doli village of Becho also lived the ancestors of the Ushkhvanis. This family name has also been modified phonetically and registered as Ushkhviani: “Jaura Ushkhviani”, “I~ne Ushukhvani”, “Dudai Ushukhiani”, Adai Ushukhiani”, “I~ne Ushukhiani” (P. Ingorokva, 151, 152); “Chorman Ushukhiani,” “G~i Ushukhviani”, “Martskhi Ushukhiani” (p. 153, 154, 155, 156).

The Kvitsiani family name first could be found in the XIV century. More than once are also mentioned the Khorguanis in the “Chronicle of Svaneti Gathering .” e.g. “Tvalmindi Khverguani”, “Gvangva Khverguani”, “Nana Khverguani”, “Tarji Khverguani”, “G~i Khverguani” (P. Ingorokva, 149, 151).

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:05 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
The Gujejianis from Becho keep the following legend: “Once there lived Eta Gujejiani in Etseri. He had three sons. One of them was a healer. One day their master Dadeshkeliani came, who intended to take one of Gujejiani’s sons and give him to the Kabardolians. Gujejiani invited his master to dinner. The nobleman was in a hurry. Let’s get up and go, he said. In those days the bullets were made with the help of a hammer, quadrangular bullets were made for feud, and round bullets – for hunting. Eta ordered to bring wine for his guest and seizing an opportunity he shoot him with quadrangular bullet. Eta and his three sons left wounded Dadeshkeliani and escaped. Eta got to Mulakhi together with one of his sons. The two young men stayed in Becho. In Mulakhi they were welcomed by the Devdarianis, who offered Eta to choose any land he liked in Mulakhi. He chose a place in upper village, in Chola. From two brothers who stayed in Becho, one was a healer. Dadeshkeliani asked the healer to cure him and promised to give in his possession the whole place above Etseri, called “Cheliri”. Eventually, Dadeshkeliani recovered and kept his promise. But the second brother had to leave Becho and move to Kabardo. His descendents took the name of Shakhmurziev.”

The following community in Below Bali Svaneti is Tskhumari. The villages of Tskhumari were: Labsqaldi, Magardeli, Lezgara, Tviberi, Svipi, Ghvebaldi. In 1886 villlages of Tskhumari Khevi ( community) belonged to Etseri society. There were 9 households (62 heads) in Labsqaldi, 28 households (208 heads) in Ghvebaldi, 7 households (39 heads) in Magardeli, 6 households (45 heads) in Lezgari, 7 households (44 heads) in Tviberi. In 1940 the following family names were registered in Tskhumari: the Argvlianis (30 families), Djachvliani (7 families), the Gerlianis (12 families), the Goshuanis (2 families), the Kaldanis (12 families), the Subelianis (2 families), the Gurchianis (1 family), the Saghlianis (14families), the Mildianis (6 families), the Gugusianis (8 families). According to the “Chronicle (of confessors) of Svaneti” the old surnames are the Djachvlianis – recorded as the Djachvinelianis, and the Saglianis, the ancestors of which were written as Saghireliani. In the XIII–XIV centuries in Tskhumari were registered: “Basil Jachvineliani,” “ Guchu Saghireliani (P. Ingorokva, p. 148). Ivane Gurechiani is the ancestor of the Gurchianis (p. 14). If we compare the data of XIII–XIV centuries and later years, we will see that the most families inhabiting in Tskhumari, do not live there any more. This is characteristic not only for Tskhumari, but for other communities as well. intra-regional migration processes, as well as abroad migration processes are noticeable. Apparently, the migration processes from mountainous Svaneti to lowland always took place.

Etseri community consolidated the villages: Kurashi, Cheliri, Svipi, Barshi, Iskari, Pkhutreri, Ughvali, Tsalanari, Lanteli, Ladreri, Lashkhreri, Zhabe-kalashi, Chvabe-kalashi, Gvalderi, Ebuthi, Usgviri. In 1886, in Etseri community (where also were consolidated the villages of Tskhumari community) resided 176 households (1366 heads). The biggest village was Barshi (28 families, 208 heads). in Svipi were 23 households (191 heads), in Iskari – 18 households ( 149 heads), in Cheliri – 19 households (149 heads), in Gvalderi - 4 households (43 heads), in Ladreri - 13 households (86 heads), in Lanteli -6 households (61 heads), in Lashkhreri - 4 households (38 heads), in Pkhutreri - 2 households (12heads), in Ughvali – 8 households (44 heads), in Tsalanari – 2 households (26 heads), in Ebuthi - 11 households (85 heads).

Inhabitants of Etseri community mainly were the following family names: Khorguani, Gujejiani, Pakeliani, Aprasidze, Gurchiani, Gerliani, Umpriani, Kantsliani, Charkviani, Gazdeliani, Tsalani, Kashtani, Stpfliani, Murghvliani, Chkhetiani, Subeliani, Pardjvliani. Pakeliani surname is mentioned in the XII century document. The family name of Khorguani has already been discussed. We will only add to above said that the Gulbanis, who live in Ipari community, consider the Khorguanis as one of their kin branches and relatives. In the XIII century document the Gurchianis ancestors from Etseri are recorded as Gurechiani, the Kantslianis – as Kantskhliani. (P. Ingorokva, p. 131).

Pari community comprised the unity of the following villages: Svipi, Katskhi, Pari, Zagari, Lamkheri, Zhabe-liha, Chvabe-liha, Laqvri, Gheshderi, Paledi, Khosrari, Qvana. According to 1886 household lists, there were 80 households (664 heads) in Pari society. Pari was the biggest among the community villages (28 households, 231 heads). In Gheshderi 11 households (973 heads), in other villages there were 9,8,6,4 households. According to 1940 data, the following surnames are registered in Pari villages. These are: Chkhvimiani (31 households), Jachvliani (13 households), Rezesidze (29 households), Aprasidze (11 households), Tsalani (21 households), Tsulukiani (16 households), Dadeshkeliani (5 households), Khapthani (2 households), Devdariani (9 households), Narsavidze (23 households), Gadrani (17 households), Chkhetiani (18 households), Vibliani (9 households). From these family names Chkhvimiani is recorded in the XIII–XIV centuries “Chronicle (of Confessors) of Svaneti”. In Lakhamula lived - “Miq~l Tskhvmiani”, “Javakhi Tskhvmiani,” “G~i Tskhuimiani”, “Shaman Tskhvimiani”, “Indoi Tskhvmiani.” “Sargis Tskhvimiani”, “Inai Tskhvimiani”, “Jiji Tskhvimiani” (P. Ingorokva, p. 180). In Pari Khevi Mai village are registered the following: “Javakhi Tskhvmiani” (p. 125). In Etseri - “M~lm Tskhumiani”, “Thuma Chkhumifkhe,” “Giorgi Tskhumiani,” “Khalina Tskhumiani,” “Gvantsai Tskhumiani” (pp. 132, 133, 134, 136). According to ethnographic data the Tsulukianis from Pari are the descendants of those the Tsulukidzes who had moved from Racha. In the archival documents of 1871, one of the Aprasidzes is registered as “Aprasuki”. Another ancient name is Gadrani. They are mentioned more than once in the XIII century documents. In the documents of the same period, the ancestors of the Viblianis are mentioned as the Ublianis.

Al. Charkviani particularly points out Lakhamula, Thavrari, Chuberi and Lenkheri communities. Lakhamula united four villages: (Zhabe-Lakhamul, Chvabe-Lakhamul, Dizi and Shdikhiri). According to data of 1940, in Lakhamula lived the following: the Chkaduas (47 families), the Davitianis (5 households), the Kvanchiani (3 households). As for the Tavrari community, Al. Charkviani lists its villages: Tavrari, Lashkhari, Tsaleri, Kichkhuldashi, Chubari, Djukhvlani, Kherkhvashi. By 1886 household lists these villages are united in Chubakhevi community. (It probably should be the present village board of Nakra). There once lived: The Ansianis, the Tsindelianis, the Viblianis, the Chkhvimiansi, the Subelianis, the Kaldanis, the Gvarmianis (12 households). According to the XIX-century ethnographic materials used by B. Nizharadze, “in the Chubukhevi society, in Tsaleri village, there is a family bearing a family name of Gvarmiani. They believe that their ancestors had migrated from Dali Gorge” (B. Nizharadze, II, p. 51). The Gvarmianis are mentioned several times in the “Chronicle (of Confessors) of Svaneti”. e.g. “Nonai Guaramiani” (p.144). In 1886 there were 116 households (997 heads) in Chubakhevi society (or Thavrari community).

If we go again over old documents, we will see that many family names once living in Svaneti migrated to the lowland (Samegrelo, Imereti, Lechkhumi, Racha). Many families inhabited in the west Georgia are of Svan origin. The following family names could be enlisted here: the Kelbackianis, the Panjikianis (now the Panjikidzes), the Ghoghelianis, the Chickovanis, the Nakvekhelianis, the Sanigianis (now the Sanikianis, Sanikidzes), the Chabukianis, the Shamanianis (now the Shamanidzes), the Zhorzholianis, the Kakhianis and many others. The migration of Svans to Samegrelo must have been too intensive, which usually resulted in changing the format of the family name. e.g. the Gobechianis became Gobechias, the Apakianis – Apakias, or Apakidzes, the Kuaratskhelianis – Kvaratskhelias, the Ubelianis – Ubilavas, the Khazalianis – Khazalias, the Kvirkvelianis – Kvirkvelias, the Karchianis – Karchavas, the Jamburianis – Jamburias, the Tsavanis – Tsava, the Gabunianis – Gabunias, the Kacharanis – Kacharavas, the Goshuanis – Goshuas, the Babluanis – Babiluas, the Stepanianis – Stepanias, the Tsipurianis – Tsipurias, the Bokerianis – Bokerias. There are also: the Chkhetianis and Chkhetias, the Ratianis and Ratias... The Sotkilavas living in Samegrelo are also of Svan origin, there previous family name was Charkviani. The Arzianis from Samegrelo formerly were Khardziani. There ancestors were the migrants from Kala community.

Regarding the family names, it should also be mentioned here, that it is possible that Georgians distinguished male and female last names by suffixes. As far back as the 30s of the XX century, it was noticeable that in Zanuri and other Georgian speeches, such function was performed by the suffix – pkhe (khe). (See I. Megrelidze, The Endings of the Female Surnames in Southern Caucasian Japhetic Languages and Folklore – articles, “ To memory of academician N. Marri, L. 1839 p. .152 – 159”) Today the Svan language makes no difference in male and female last names but as it turns out, the suffix – pkhe was characteristic to the Svan language as well. In the XIII–XIV centuries “Chronicle of Svaneti Family Names” the women, their last names were registered with suffix –pkhe: “Khalina Gursapkhe” (male: “Gursiani”), “Sukvai Beutmanipkhe” (male: Beutmaniani”), “Mamkan Ataripkhe” (male: Atariani), “M~rm Gogorelipkhe” (male: Gogoreliani), “Tovlai Mikelipkhe” (male: “Mikelini”, “Mikelani”); “Mariam Rumbipkhe” (the same: “Rumbiani”), “Sukvai Uchinaripkhe” (the same: “ Uchinariani”), “Tuma Chkhumipkhe” (male: “Mk~l Chkhumiani”, “G~i Chkhumiani”) (P. Ingorokva, II, p. 117, 121, 122, 129, 131, 133 …). By the same suffix –pkhe are formed the women’s last names in later periods (the XV – XVII centuries) patrimonial commemoration: Gurchipkhe (Gurchiani), Dachkelapkhe (Dadichkeliani), Djaparipkhe (Japaridze), Oripkhe (Oriani), Ruchegipkhe (Ruchegiani), Gadrapkhe (Gadrani), Tsalapkhe (Tsalani)

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:05 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
As it turns out, the above mentioned suffix – pkhe was added not only to the surnames of females but to their first names as well. Complex - pkh in female names was characteristic to later ethnographic life. There are stated two female names in the ancestral chronicle of the XIII century. These are: “Kostapkhe” and “Adrapkhe “(P. Ingorokva, II, p. 135, 137). It is evident that this suffix was added to the male name and in that way they were changing into female names. Two examples given above -“Kosta - pkhe” and “Adra - pkhe “are the best illustrations of that. The female names with the suffix – pkhe are also stated in one of the archival documents of 1865 (Kutaisi State Archives, fund 21, Case #10254, FF 1-20). “Khazipkh”- was the name of Udesiani from Lendjeri, who was born in 1806. The bearers of the name “Dachkelapkh” were three people: “Dachkelapkh Japaridze,” (born in 1852), the daughter –in-law of the Japaridzes – “Dachkelapkh” (born in 1823), and: “Dadishkelapkh” (common people pronounced as “Dachkelapkh”) Chartolani (born in 1843). Under the above mentioned archive materials, the bearers of the name “Berdupkh” were two people: “Berdupkh Japaridze,” (born in 1862) – the aunt of Tsioq Japaridze, who was born in the XVIII century. “Eldapkh” was Bekan Khergiani’s wife born in 1835, and “Eldapkh” was also Tatav Daduani’s a two-year old daughter’s name. Another six-year old daughter’s name of the same Tatav Daduani was “Girgulapkh”. A female name “Berdupkh” is also stated in 1871 document in Enguri Gorge, Ushguli village. Gegi Chelidze’s wife bore the name of “Berdupkh”. She was twenty-four. (Kutaisi State Archives, fund 21, Case #10254, FF 1-20). If we take away this suffix, we will receive male names which were once widespread in Svaneti: “Dachkela,” “Berda,” “Ilda,” Girgula,” Khazi”. Female names formation by the suffix – pkh, was not characteristic to other historical-ethnographic territories of West Georgia. The reason of that might have been the fact that, in Georgian historical documents female proper names are not so frequently mentioned.

In the XII – XIII centuries Svaneti was the organic part of Georgian Christendom. This is clearly visible from anthroponymies fixed in the “Chronicle of Svaneti Gathering”. Both, men and women mostly were the bearers of Georgian and Christian canonized names. Apparently pure (transparent) Georgian names must have penetrated here earlier, than canonized Christian names. From Georgian lowland entered the eastern (mainly Persian-Iranian) names. In the XII - XIII centuries in Svaneti were widely spread the following canonized Christian names: Giorgi, Ilarioni, Mikel, Mariam, Martha, Nino, Ivane, Noe, Arsen, Marine, Egnati, Gabriel, Nikoloz, Demetre, Atanase, Makar, Davit, Zei, Iakob, Anania, Grigol, Basil. From transparent Georgian – Georgian related names could be listed: Mukhlukhai, Nateli (female), Nagvelai, Gamrekel, Gvantsa (female), Khalina (female), Ertgulai (female), Sinatle, Rkina, Djavakhi, Okropiri, Tvalshavi, Toulai (female), Zviad, Qursiki, Nakvetai, Tvalmindi (female), Mtsare, Shvidai, Bichsai, Ledachi, Tsotne, Malkhina, Shuenuri, Chabukvela, Djokhai, Datuai, Nizhara, Shavai, Kalkmai (female), Lomai, Prangi, Tbeli, Mtvare (female), Tsetskhlai, Tvare, Dudai (female), Chkhagu, Gudjedji, Veshag, Berezhi, Zazi, Chargas, Tutai, Kurtskha and many others.

From Georgian lowland the following names of eastern origin also entered Svaneti: Tinatini, Angurag, Arghun, Tariel, Sargis, Rusudan, Gurandukht, Rati, Vakhtang, Khvashagi, Beshken, Djahvar, Abesalom, Siagush, Partsman, Shahanshah, Taibula, Burlukhan, Chakatan, Atardji, Shekhasan, Bezhan …

In the above mentioned period, in Svaneti Northern Caucasian anthroponymies could rarely be observed that became widespread there since the XVIII century.

Besides several exceptions, Georgian surnames spread in Svaneti are ending in the suffix – an (ian). Such exceptions are ending in – dze, - Shvili, - ia suffixes. e.g. Djokhadze, Aprasidze, Rezesidze, Djaparidze, Chelidze, Nizharadze, Kakriashvili, Lukhutashvili, Kordzaia. We will only briefly admit that suffix – an (ian), by which Svan family names are formed, was characteristic to whole Georgia but gradually it was changed by other suffixes. But Svaneti has maintained it almost intact and unaltered.

While talking about Svan family names, it is impossible not to touch upon a question of their branches. Branches of family names were common all over Georgia, and they were in fact the second inherited names. These branches were counted in Svaneti as closely related groups, and defined with the term “Samkhubii” (“Lamkhubii”) which is translated as “brotherhood”. “Samkhubis” are based on blood relations, the members of which are called brothers, and the union itself is called “fraternity”. The latter is divided into close and distant relatives (brothers). After Samkhubis gradual increase they would again have divided in new branches.

Like some historical-ethnographical parts of Georgian highlands, death-feud was characteristic to Svaneti, too. A closest relative i.e. a family member (brother, son, father) of a murdered man had to seek revenge for his killed relative.

Over the XX century and until now, a guilty person was punished by the state organs, but after the penitentiary punishment, all matters were settled, and are still settled, by so called, habitual justice. Otherwise, in case of murder, reconciliation of confronted groupings was impossible. During the XX century habitual justice was not forgotten in highlands, as well as in lowland, where Svans lived because of various reasons.

By the above reviewed materials we saw that Svaneti was inhabited with various family names and their divisions (“Samkhubis”). In Svaneti each community structure was based on the territorial principle. The families did not have the same surnames. The territorial entities (community, village) were inhabited with various families. e.g. Mulakhi community, that united 8 villages, consisted 26 different family names. In one of the villages of Mulakhi – Chvabini, were resided the families bearing five different surnames. Alike Enguri Gorge Svaneti a multifamily phenomenon was also peculiar to Tskhenistkali Gorge Svaneti. In both Gorges, only the family divisions (Samkhubis, Lamkhubis) had common territories. In the XX century family settlements on the same territorial entity began to disintegrate.

The village communities had their own popular gatherings named - Luzor, Lukhor. Such Gatherings were chaired by “Makhvshi” elected by people. The term of Makhvshi election was indefinite and he occupied this prestigious position to his old age, or his dying day. If a community had no confidence in Makhvshi any longer, he could be substituted. But such cases were practically rare. Makhvshi’s recommendations were accepted, or turned down on general gatherings. “First, Makhvshi discussed all public cases with the experienced and trustworthy people, and then submitted their decision to the general gathering” (B. Nizharadze). In the past, when all Svans were armed, Makhvshi had a right to disarm all men during holiday celebrations after completing of which he returned them weapons.

The right of attending the community Gatherings and participating in them had not only all adult youths, but adult women as well. The community Gathering had big competence, it had a right to drive out and expel a dweller, burn his house to ashes, and even pass a death sentence upon him. One of the functions of community Gathering was solving issues of military campaign. The Gathering was regulating inter-community relationships. Community Gathering was merciless towards thieves. Protecting its members’ morals - was a community Gathering’s responsibility. According to Nizharadze’s words:”If a woman turned out to be dishonored and had given birth to an illegitimate child, the Gathering would confiscate the part of cornfield, or hayfield of his parent and the land would have stayed as village duty for good. Such dishonored woman and her illegitimate child were not allowed to enter church, participate in national or religious celebrations and be buried in sanctified land.” Owing to strict habitual justice of Svaneti traditional society, such kind of crimes, or mistakes that are alien to people’s collective thinking, practically never happened. Taking oath was, and still is, very important in Svan mentality. Oath was made on Christian church territory, on an icon of a saint brought out of this church. Makhvshi also was to take an oath and swear that he would be faithful to community and his people and always protect their traditions.

In the main, above-mentioned community relationships were characteristic to Above Bali Svaneti, that is to say, free Svaneti, where feudal relations stepped back in opposition with communal relations. That happened after the disintegration of the unified state of Georgia.

At first, the territorial community head of Svaneti must have been “Khevistavi”. According to ethnographic records made in the beginning of the XX century, in both, Tskhenistkali and Enguri Gorges of Svaneti, “Khevistavi’s” kheristau(v)//peristau(v)s responsibilities were reduced. While “Khevi”, under the medieval documents, was a term indicating territorial community of later period. By the ethnographically available period, kheristau//peristaus functions were mainly reduced to exposing thieves and arranging matters of supporting the aged and disabled who had no families and relatives.

The written documents also exist about Svans territorial community, the same “Khevi” (Kheu). Such documents are mainly survived about Enguri Gorge of Svaneti, especially concerning its upper part (free) - Balszemo Svaneti. According to these documents the representatives of separate Khevi (territorial community) of Svaneti, made all-out efforts for uniting the community members. For example, in one of the documents of Seti Khevi is pointed directly that, “Kheu” should personify the united power against enemy. The Khevi traitor must be banished, or imposed financial penalty (100 tetris) on him. The content of this document is such: “We, the children of Saint Archangel church of Seti, wrote this letter under warranty and through the mediation of Saint Martyr and this is a confirmation of invariable, immutable, and indisputable statement, that for no reasons whatever - we are inseparable; The decision is final and eternal; Whenever it is necessary we are to unite the Fiends and the friends and make concerted efforts against our enemy; Let us be friends of each other’s friends, and be enemies of each other’s enemies; Do not leave each other in sorrow, or in merriment, or betray because of a man, or a bribe; If one of us has to pay the fine, let us share it; If one of us needs help, let all of us stand by; Let us perform our deeds by ourselves, with all-out efforts and rise as one man for the sake of each other with tenderness in our heart; If one of us earns too much, may him share a third to the others.

We prove this letter by oath and if someone breaks this oath he will be cursed in his lifetime and in the next world; His body here, and soul there; Henceforth and forevermore; In both lives;

He, who steps back, will pay a hundred Tetris and will be banished.” (P. Ingorokva, II, p.45).

The above given example is important in many respects. It is obvious that the document was made up in the period of time over which the feudal relations stepped back with desperate efforts of the members of territorial community and this happened after the disintegration of unity of Georgian State system; Community members were uniting against common enemy – the feudal lords; They were not united so far; An important point also is that the oath on unity, inseparability and solidarity was made “under the warranty and through the mediation of Seti Saint Martyr” and if someone broke this oath he would be punished not only by people (in the name of god), but also be cursed by chapel. There is one significant aspect different from lowland. While in the Middle Ages lowland, only a church nobleman was called “Saqdrishvili” in highlands (Svaneti) all the parishioners, in other words, all the community members, were called this way. In the Middle Ages Svaneti no actual separation was made between civil and church cases. The leader and mediator of all civilian cases was Khevi (community) chapel. e.g. In medieval Kala Community, mountain pastures were common. If someone would break the rules concerning the pasture, the main Khevi chapel and the habitants of territorial community (“wholesome Khevi”) would punish him jointly.

In all the Svanuri and historical documents, which are, at the same time, legal documents, a territorial community is mentioned as Khevi (kheu). In the XX century these Khevis, or territorial communities, were named “societies” by the Russian government. They maintained unity even during the Soviet regime, because in those days, the historical traditions were taken into consideration in territorial administrative divisions. The Soviets could not help doing otherwise, because all these units were determined according to their geographical, historical, and agrarian conditions, and inviolability of these units’ borders were permanent. Svan people keep these bounds to this very day. Even today, these units (former communities) are united a round their main chapels. It is evident that initially, the quantity of territorial communities was more significant. But gradually they increased, and consolidated under the protection of larger communities. e.g. Once there was separate Muzhali community and little by little, it became a part of Mulakhi community. In the historical documents, a part of present Latali – Ienashi, was mentioned separately. Separate territorial community of Doli, later became one of the villages of Beri territorial community.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:06 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Territorial communities (Khevi) of Svaneti were closely connected with each other. More than once is mentioned united Khevi of Svaneti. Thus, a term “Khevi” denoted not only the separate territorial units, but the whole Svaneti, which was situated on a big territorial unit, on two big Gorges. Territorial community of Mestia, i.e. “Mestia Kheu” was located in Mestia Chalai Gorge; “Mulakhi Kheu” (territorial community) – in Mulakhi Chalai Gorge; Hadishi community (“Kheu”) – in Hadish Chalai Gorge and etc. Each community (Kheu) was a consolidation of several villages.

Territorial communities had common interests, such as: Conducting joint campaigns against common enemies, self – defense, protecting common properties (pastures, churches and religious plate – crosses, icons) , providing welfare of the community members and protecting their interests. The latter was managed by leaders (Perstau, or pertau, or Makhvshi) elected on community Gatherings.

Acting power of Svaneti community was -so called “Sumra”. Its functions differed from those of acting army. In “Suimra” were recruited the best warriors from various communities. It had police functions. “Suimra” provided punishments of those families that had ignored decisions made by territorial community, or whole Svaneti (united Kheu of Svaneti).

As it turns out, there existed, so called “Suimra of Shuania” or “Kheuia Suimra” that united separate “Suimras“of different territorial communities. These so called police groupings do not exist currently, moreover – it did not exist in the XIX – XX centuries either. In case, any person, or family did not obey the decisions of common gatherings of Svaneti, Svimra (Suimra) would banish them from a community, or exile from Svaneti. . “Suimra” had steadily been executing community boarder decisions (about expulsion, burning houses down, or arresting people). People attributed great importance to “Suimra.” The latter also represented the identification institute of Svaneti people. According to the ethnographic data of the first period of the XX century, in “Suimra” times (until seventieth of the XIX century) there was good order in Svaneti.

In relationships of Enguri Gorge inhabitants, taking oath was of a great importance. Relations within society were regulated through oath. Taking oath was performed in front of an icon, in a Christian church. Oath breakers practically never existed. The importance of oath in traditional life of Svaneti could be proved not only by ethnographic data, but also by the documents made up in the Middle Ages in Svaneti. The oath, practically, was some kind of prophylactic measure for Svans, aiming prevention of any breaking of Svaneti traditions that were established during the centuries; The main purpose of such measure was to bar from any harm to the territorial community on the whole, or its members in particular. Svans sacramental obligations covered - fidelity, peaceful relations, no theft, no work on holidays. The only way to make a guilty person confess, was to make him swear in front of Christian saint’s icon. Over years, ethnographic life of Svaneti lost some elements, but as for oath, it is still very important for Svan people.

In cases of crime the families were making payments called “Hibari”. Relatively smaller payment was established for working on holidays. Sometimes the families worked purosely on holidays and in this way they were paying “Hibar” beforehand. Taking “Hibar” and making contributions to church were provided on fixed days and fixed times for everyone. Contribution was spent together by villagers (community members). Payment size depended on the seriousness of a crime. e.g. If someone used bad language towards a community member undeservedly, besides the fine fixed for such kind of insult, his family would have had to pay some payment in favour of community. “Hibar” was paid only by a single family and not by the whole kin or its divisions, the unity of relatives called “Samkhubi”, ( “Lamkhubi”) in Svaneti. Little by little, above mentioned payments are falling into oblivion. The big families, called in the Svan literature as “Family Communities” were also forgotten long ago. At the beginning of the XIX-XX centuries, the extended families consisted of two, three, or more married brothers, living together with their parents, could be found in all parts of Georgia with the exception of such historical-ethnographic territory of West Georgian highlands –Khevsureti. Not only brothers, but aunts and cousins living together in such big families, is a proven fact. In the XIX century, the author - B. Nizharadze not once mentioned above wrote that Svan families were numerous. Families with fifty and more members were registered by him. But still, in the XIX century extended families were not universal in Svaneti. An ethnographer R. Kharadze proved the facts of small families reunion accompanied with corresponding rituals. In natural-geographic conditions of Svaneti, big families were the best way of housekeeping. They were managed by (“Kora Makhvshi”) the elder. Makhvshi always occupied a special seat in the Svan house. It was “Kora Makhvshi,” who divided farming functions between men in such families. It was peculiar to both, Enguri and Tskenistskali Gorges of Svaneti, the mixed form of farming, i.e. agriculture and stock farming. Timbering was a time-consuming work. For mountain – dwellers in Svaneti, as well as in other mountainous territories, it was customary to take extra jobs outside of their dwelling places. In agriculture and stock farming were participating both, men and women. Everybody’s functions were strictly divided into big families. All kind of works performed by women managed (“Kora Makhvshi”) the elder, “Kora Makhvshi’s wife, as usual. From the twentieth-thirtieth of the XX century, extended families in Svaneti gave way to small, individual families.

To Svaneti were characteristic the similar conjugal relations as to other parts of Georgia. Marriage was, and still is, exogamic, i.e. the members of one and the same families could not be married, though in the XX century, in some places, this tradition was broken and there were cases, when the representatives of different branches (Samkhubis) of the same surname got married. But those were the cases when the relations were so distant, nobody remembered the initial date of formation of those Samkhubis (which had, and still have, their own surnames), how many generations, or centuries had passed since. Owing to the ethnographic data was proved that, more frequent are such marriages when there is no relations between Samkhubis and one of these two Samkhubis has once been artificially related with the other for some reason. e,g, In several villages of Enguri Gorge of BalsUpper Svaneti are dwelling the Kvitianis, one of the divisions of which, or Samkhubi named as “Gorsosher”, represent the real Kvitsianis. Their ancestors had been moved from the North Caucuses, Balkaria and asked the protection to a powerful family – Kvitsiani. After performing the special rituals they artificially became related and took their family name, but with the only difference that they got another name of family division. That is to say, the marriages happen only between these two different branches of the mentioned family. The families within which ever had occurred marriages, are called “disreputable families” and the term bears a negative meaning. During the last 15-20 years, such “disreputable families” in both, Low and Upper Svaneti, took an oath in village or community chapels, that they would not put up with similar cases (within family marriages) any more. We had already discussed above how important is for Svan people taking an oath in Christian churches. According to ethnographic data, not a single case of marriage between the families of the same origination is revealed. e. g. After moving from Ipari to Becho community the Gulbanis took a new family name – Khorguani. Until today, the representatives of these two families do not marry each other. One might say the same about Nakani, Chkhvimiani and Goshuani families. Even today, Svans will never agree to a marriage, if their grandparents, or mother or father of their grandparents bear the mentioned family name. In such cases the prohibition refers to four generations.

Alike other historical-ethnographic territories, a period of mourning is very long in Svaneti. The members of Samkhubii and a big family name take great pains to support a family of a deceased. The mourning is expressed by wearing black clothes for a long time, especially if the deceased is young. Like other parts of Georgia, in Svaneti were family graveyards, or to be more precise, there were lots defined for all families in the cemetery situated around the village church. This tradition was broken in some places in the XX century, though. e.g. In Mestia, the “Saviour’s Church” of Laghami village belongs to the Khodjelani family. The members of the family keep the church key and only the Khojelanis’ graves are in the churchyard. About thirty years ago, the neighbours asked the Khodjelanis to let them bury there a deceased belonging to other family. The Khodhelanis expressed good will and agreed. In old times nobody would broke the tradition.

In Svaneti a special kind of mourning song - “Zari”, was accompanied the ceremonials connecting with deceased. The song was performed only by men. All the territorial communities of BalsUpper Svaneti had its own original mourning songs that were characteristic only to each of those communities, whilst Balskvemo (Low) Svaneti had only one version of “Zari”. There are not many performers of mourning songs currently. Svaneti is rich of musical folklore, especially for its well-known sun and dawn hymns, heroic, and dance, or comic songs.

Svaneti was a treasure keeper of Georgian churches and monasteries in the days of Muslims attacks in Georgia. Georgians were obliged to hide crosses, icons and other church plate that were works of art as well: the precious manuscripts (Bible, Gospel) in the churches of Svaneti. They were safe and secure owing to the mountain conditions. Traditionally they were guarded by the key keepers of various churches that traditionally were the representatives of definite families. In 2005 we had a possibility to see the unique golden icon of Saint George with Georgian inscriptions on it. It is decorated with precious stones. This small icon made in the XI century, was destined for a worrier, but initially belonged to some nobleman. There are a lot of samples of goldsmithery, wall painting, wood engraving, made by hand of the masters living in Svaneti. In the XIII century the “Saviour’s Church” of Lagami is painted by the native painter Kirkishliani.

Svaneti is the country of towers that generally had a defensive function. About 200 towers could be counted here. As many is destroyed. Several towers belonged to each family, in construction of which the whole village were taking part. It was impossible to build that towers without collective work. Although, according to legends, some families were more skilful in building towers. The Svans name Sister and brother Berianis, who are famous as the masters of tower building. The old two-story stone outhouses are not of lesser importance. In olden times, almost all towers and Svan houses were represented as a group of buildings, which in compliance with geographical environment, made the landscape exclusive.

In the 80s of the XIX century B. Nizharadze counted about 100 stone houses and 59 towers. A tower generally had the defensive function. In fact, it was an impregnable fortress. Though a tower had another function as well, it was steady - against avalanche. The latter was verified by the last 20 years catastrophes. The people born in Svaneti are so accustomed to their towers that during the Soviet system, those who moved and settled down to lowland, in relatively big groups, had built towers even there.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:06 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Svans also had had living towers. On the first floor (“Machvib”) they kept domestic animals, the second one was destined for living, and the third floor had a defensive meaning.

About 100 churches have been survived, that wonderfully blends in natural-geographic environment of Svaneti. Small churches of Svaneti are hall type basilicas . The most of them are built in the X-XV centuries and there are Georgian inscriptions in all of them. But there are churches built even earlier. e.g. the first floor of the two-story Laghami church named - “Christ”, dates back to the VIII century.

Only in Svaneti could be found frescos on the outside walls of churches. Besides, some of them do not refer to the church subject. e.g. On frescos on the outside walls of Lashtkhveri and Chakashi churches are used several topics from “AmiranDaredjaniani” by Mosse Khoneli. The tradition of outside wall painting is rather rare in world history of art. It only could be found on later monuments of some countries in Balkan States. While in Svaneti, the X – XIII centuries church facades are decorated with outside wall paintings.

Owing to the variety of natural – geographic conditions, there existed several complexes of living and farming houses in Georgia, but Svaneti was an exception. Dwelling system was also original here. There were only a few cases when a village was inhabited with families bearing the same surname. Usually, the representatives of two, three, or more family names lived in villages. But at the same time, it should also be admitted here, that each kin had its own separate dwelling areas in the Svan villages. For example, in upper zone of Lekhtagi village of Mestia, Khergiani family inhabited there, and in lower zone – The Chartolanis. There also were cases when families settled down in the zones belonging to other family names, especially when a son-in-law lived in the family of his wife. The latter mostly occurred, if a woman had no brothers and she brought her husband home. In such cases, she inherited fortune from her father what was absolutely out of the question in West Georgian highlands. We could not find confirmations of son-in-laws getting their wives’ family names; whereas in other parts of Georgia, coming to a fortune was possible only on condition that son-in-law would change his family name into his wife’s.

The XIII century documents prove up the fact that Svan villages, even in the Middle Ages, were not inhabited with one and the same family names. e.g. By that time in Doli village of Becho territorial community, lived over 25 different family names.

Svaneti was remarkable for its densely populated villages. There were small places of dwelling (villages) there. Ground area and relief never allowed formation of big settlements. In the end of the XIX century there were over 140 villages in Svaneti. Group of villages, as it was stated above, in Svaneti, as well as in other Georgian provinces, was defined with a Georgian term “Khevi” (Khev). The villages were situated along the gorge. According to the written documents of the XIV-XV centuries referring to Svaneti, the mentioned term, in its social meaning is equal to territorial (and not family) community. Very often, the group of several gorges (also communities of these gorges and their Khevis) also was expressed with the term “Khevi”. Khevi, that is to say, territorial community, until recently represented well-defined and organized union and the villages were its subordinate part. The villages even had no autonomic functions towards Khevi (territorial community). All this was also strengthened by religion. Besides the village Christian churches, the communities had their main chapels where all the representatives of community (Khevi) prayed together.

Thus, in spite of early spreading of feudalism, the communal traditions were also survived in Svaneti. They did not impede each other. According to the Feudalism History experts’ observations, in all European countries existed the regions that were characterised with social -economic system peculiarities. (Gurevich. A Problem of Feudalism Genesis In West Europe, М ., 1970 Enc. , p. 8) Svaneti was one of such parts of Georgia. This is mostly due to its mountainous natural – geographic conditions. In one part of Svaneti, upper Enguri Gorge (Upper Svaneti), feudal relations stepped back after disintegration of the united Georgia. That is why, this part is called “free Svaneti”. Everything was regulated here by the territorial communal relations through habitual justice that in many cases was based on church and feudal justice as well. The role of Georgian Church was not lost in “free Svaneti” either. It is significant to note that in “free Svaneti” the “Vargis,” super layer of noblemen existed until the late period. They were nobles only by their surnames. As for their status, they were not distinguished from ordinary community members.

Territorial communities of Svaneti were closely connected with each other, and according to the documents was known as “Khevi of united Svaneti”, or “Happy Khevi”. The mentioned documents state that in the Middle Ages there was a system of common government, with its common Gathering and board practically kept in ethnographic life of Svaneti. The reason of this might have been the fact that Tskenistskali Gorge, i. e. Lower Svaneti and BalsUpper Svaneti of Enguri Gorge were in hands of different feudal lords, while feudalism in BalsUpper Svaneti of Enguri Gorge had lost its positions. According to the documents it is not clear, whether Tskenistskali Gorge of Svaneti was the part of “United Khevi”, or not. Some scientists suppose that Low Svaneti was the part of “United Khevi of Svaneti”. This supposition is based on the fact that “Lagurka” of Kali was the central and strong chapel for people living both, in lower and Upper Svaneti. According to ethnographic data, some North Caucasian territories (e.g. “Bakhsan”) once inhabited with Svans, also were the part of “United Khevi of Svaneti”. In the later period of the Middle Ages, the name -“United Khevi of Svaneti”, was used only regarding upper part of Enguri Gorge, in other words, “Free Svaneti”, where feudalism stepped back.

As it turns out from the “Historical Monuments of Svaneti”, “United Khevi of Svaneti” had its own flag and the standard-bearer. The latter was considered as the honorable position. There was a lion on the flag called “Lemi”, while the flag carrier was named “Melome”. Melome was the keeper of “Lemi” and carrying the flag out was also one of his functions. When “Melome” walked in the village with Lemi in his hands that was a sign for every single Svan to join a campaign. Not joining was out of question. Otherwise, the missing village, or community would have been punished by “All Svaneti Khevi". The position of “Melome” was hereditary. Lemi was kept in Seti (in Mestia). The bearers of five “Saint George’s” family names (Mitvliani, Ratiani, Mchedliani, Paliani, Niguriani) were dwelling in Mestia and only they posessed the right of carrying out the flag of the whole Svaneti (“Lemi”). The right of Carrying out Lemi the next day, belonged to Japaridze family. They are said to receive this right since Japaridze’s wife had sewed a new “Lemi” instead of the worn one. According to the historical documents, the men not belonging to above families also had the same rights. e.g. In the document of the middle of the XIV century is mentioned “Melome”- bearing a name of “Goshkoteliani Azag”. (The Written Monuments of Svaneti, I, Tb. 1986, p. 171). The Goshtelianis were also dwelling in Mestia community, but in Lanchvali village. And nevertheless, according to the documents, Melome was elected by community, although it was done from the above mentioned families. It is not without interest that, common flag of Svaneti (“Lemi”) had passed into the possession of Svans after winning a victory over Tatars. According to some legends, it expressed a wolf and not a lion. The flag (“Lemi”) lost its function long ago and it is only the museum exhibit nowadays.

Historically, Svaneti communities often were in direct confrontation with each other. Powerful communities had weaker and smaller communities under their influence and subordination. Mulakhi community was remarkable with its strength, and was imposed special payments in favor of relatively weak communities (Tsvirmi, Ipari, Kala, Hadishi, Muzhali). The strength/weakness of communities often was resulting in formation of larger territorial communities. Integration of Mulazhi and Mulakhi communities exemplifies the above said. Under the above mentioned payment, was understood to be hospitable to the men of strong communities once a year during Peter-Paul’s fast.

As it was already mentioned, farming form of Svaneti was a symbiosis of stock farming and agriculture. In the XX century the main crop in Svaneti is potato. In the Middle Ages Svans generally were cultivating: barley, oats, millet, hemp. Svaneti was almost the only historical - ethnographic region in Georgia, where hayfields were irrigated and are irrigated to present day. That gave the locals possibility to haymake grass twice during summertime. According to ethnographic data, hay obtained from grass after the second hay-make was of higher quality. Svans were making hats and cloaks of wool. Svan hats, which are mostly favorable all over Georgia, were made of three colors: white, black and grey. Though, modern hats are rather modified in comparison with the hats made in the XIX century. Svan hat are laced so that the laces form cross, as a sign of Christian loyalty.

It should be briefly admitted here the following: In spite of the fact that Svans adopted Christianity in the beginning of the Middle Ages, in their beliefs and imaginations survived some pre-Christian, heathenish rituals. Sometimes Christian and heathenish beliefs are presented in syncretic form. An ethnographer Bardavelidze revealed many examples of folk beliefs. He stated that the cult of Saint Barbara substituted the cult of sun. Winter holiday “Lipanali” is an example of pre-Christian period remnant. It is a day of seeing-off souls of deceased. During Lipanali, or rather, the last day of the holiday, the men from Mestia community divide in two groups and push each other, alike in rugby. The stronger group is declared to be the winner. The day for mentioning souls is “Lamproba”. Everybody brings a two-meter piece of cut birch to the cemetery and there, all Samkhubi, (family division) is lighting there pieces of birch together. They pray for saving souls of deceased. Women are crying aloud for lately dead relatives. The participants of the ceremonial are not leaving the territory of the cemetery until the lamps (birch pieces) burn down. It is remarkable that the same ritual is slightly different in Latali community. It also has a different name (“Shishlag”). People light two-meter pieces of birch at home and then carry to the cemetery. They are carrying so many flaming birches as are the males in each family. In the same Latali community also was the ritual of “Ligunashi” which meant attacking with flaming wood. The subject of attack had to flee, or get into a fight. In case he could not manage to escape, he had to stand get dirty, or burned. “Ligunash” could be translated as “getting dirty with charcoal”. There still exist Svans loyal to “Lamproba”. The rituals and beliefs connecting with deceased are more conservative. The mentioned rituals are performed by Svan people dwelling in lowland densely populated with Svans. Professor Bardavelidze considers that the meaning of cults given in folk holiday celebrations are very complicated; It is the conglomerate of different steps of beliefs and religions. The one thing is clear, in Svaneti some heathen rituals intertwined with Christianity, give modern scientists the possibility of reconstituting some pictures of pre-Christian Georgian beliefs and imaginations.

The study of legends about the family names enables us to find out the number of various social questions. This was discussed above, and it could be added here that fuller picture of several directions of migration is beginning to emerge in Svaneti. There could be observed inner migration processes, as well as migrations from other parts of Georgia, let alone the Svans permanent migrations both, into West and East Georgia. Such processes were historically characteristic not only for Svaneti, but for all mountainous parts of Georgia. Surplus population were moving to the lowland; Because of the frequent wars, there always existed such possibilities. There are also many proved facts of migrations from North Caucuses to Svaneti.

As it was said above, the representatives of the same families always took care of churches. Serving icon (sacred image) was their responsibility. They also were taking charge of church plate. Maintenance and roofing of churches were also their responsibilities. The most honorable person, “Shokeli”, as Svans called him, was in charge with key -keeping. To present day each family performs the above duties just as they did centuries ago.

While praying in their churches, Svans were mentioning not only their village, or province chapels. “First they mentioned their own chapels, then churches of the neighboring villages; After praying for chapels of Balskvemo (Low) Svaneti, they prayed for chapels of BalsUpper Svaneti and finished their prays by mentioning churches of Lechkhumi, Samegrelo and Apkhazeti”. (V. Bardavelidze, p.62). This ethnographic material is very remarkable in the sense that Svaneti was not isolated from other historical-ethnographic regions of Georgia. Quite the contrary, its relationships with these regions is evident even according to data on religion. According to common people’s belief, Saint George’s church of Ilori, Apkhazeti, used to send bulls to several churches of Saint George of Svaneti. In return, Ilori church got candles from churches of Svaneti yearly. The Svans believe that Saint George’s churches of Ilori and Apkhazeti and Saint George’s curches of Latali and Lendjeri were the brothers and Ilori was the eldest. They say that all the three brothers came from East Georgia – Kakheti and settled down in their region. One may assume that it reflects the facts of population migration. It is known that over a long period of time, the migrants were not forgetting their former chapels and were expressing them in legends about fraternization of the churches.

Regardless of the fact that Svaneti was a mountainous historical-ethnographic region, it had never been isolated from other parts of Georgia. Svans had close economical relations even with North Caucasian mountaineers using the paths made centuries ago.

Leaving their villages in search of jobs was characteristic for Svaneti. Part of the population – able-bodied men were going to various ethnographic regions of Georgia in the hope of finding a job. This event was not occurred in the later period; it had originated in the depths of history long ago and was also peculiar to other mountainous ethnographic regions. It comes as no surprise, because there was a lack of agricultural lands in highlands and Svans were trying to look for different ways for supporting their families. One of these ways was to go to lowland to seek employment there. The fact that Svans were systematically visiting different regions of Georgia in search of job is proved by the Georgian historical documents. In 1503 “In the letter of King Alexander on Svans adequate payment to the Japaridzes for blood feud” we read: “You came and your uncles Tvalia and Ivane began to fight with us. The sin with the help of evil prevailed over us. Then we, began to fight against you, Sargis Japaridze, and you did not let us to leave for Racha, or Lechkhumi, to work as farm laborers or find any other kind of job there. It lasted seven years. No one could receive Eucharist (because of not having wine) all over Svaneti; we forgot the taste of salt. It was too much for us to stand. Finally we decided to get over Lechkumi, we gathered four hundred dray-horses, two man accompanied each hoarse, came to Lechkumi and sold everything we brought there for selling. Bought wine and returned.”… “You took away our four hundred horses and wine together with the packs.” Besides, you did other cruelties to us, and we could not find the ways to escape and find some job beyond Svaneti. Hundred of us stole away to the direction of west, trying to get to Kakheti to work as farm laborers“. “We saw so much suffering that one can not describe in words. We appeared isolated in Svaneti on the opposite side of Etseri and for twelve years we could not find the way to flee to Kaheti, nor to Samtskhe, or Guria” (Written Documents of Svaneti, I, p. 113 - 114).

Thus, according to the extract of above deed is obvious that Svaneti and its population could not exist without economic relations with lowland of Georgia. In search of jobs, Svans were regularly visiting not only the neighboring Racha and Lechkhumi, but such distant historical-ethnographic parts, as Guria (The Black Sea region of West Georgia), Kakheti (extreme west of Georgia), Samtskhe (south-west province of Georgia). As the above statements indicate, Svans were generally buying wine and salt there. They are so concerned because of not having wine - “It lasted seven years. No one could receive Eucharist all over Svaneti…” . For Svans, as for Orthodox Christians, it was very difficult to manage without wine; Giving Eucharist without wine was unimaginable. At the same time, they took wine on their big religious holidays. Svans also brought other produces in Svaneti, such as pitchers, large quantities of which are found both, in Upper and Lower Svaneti. In Svan towers are buried pitchers brought from lowland. In dangerous war-times, the Svansis, closed in their towers, kept drinking water in those buried pitchers. According to the historical documents, Svans were taking a large amount of honey and candles for selling in lowland.

The information about Svans seeking jobs in Samegrelo, also possessed an Italian scientist Archangello Lamberti (the XVII century). He wrote that, in order to support their families, “…in the beginning of every summer, the groups of Svans always come down to Samegrelo,” “…they work in Samegrelo until harvest time” then “they return home”, and “…when winter begins, Svans come down to Odishi” and stay there “…until the end of winter” (A. Lamberti, Description of Samegrelo, Tb. 1938, p. 167). Thus, Svans were going down to work in groups, and not only in winter, but in summer as well, in other words, in such periods when they were not occupied in the mountains.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:07 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
In the 40-50s of the XIX century, when relations between the heads of Samegrelo and Svaneti (governed by principality) became strained, and all kinds of contacts between them were under a ban, the noblemen from free Svaneti, Besi and Sulatan Kurdianis, together with several peasants, had to ask the head of Samegrelo, Dadiani, a favor to conclude a “Trustworthy agreement” on “free entry” and “unhindered trade” (A. Gelovani, Mountainous Region of West Georgia (Svaneti) in the XIX Century. Thesis, p.160, 2002).

From the materials reviewed above, it is evident that, the regular economic contacts with regions of Georgian lowland, was vitally necessary for people dwelling in Svaneti. They were communicating not only with neighboring and adjoining regions, but were constantly establishing relations with back lands as well.

The Svans works outside of Svaneti was important because of one more reason, particularly, after several months working in lowland Svans were learning Georgian. Already in the ninetieth of the XIX century B. Nizharadze pointed about that: “The way, owing to which the Georgian language spreads in Svaneti, nothing else but Svans communications with Georgian speaking neighbors. Recently, one can meet the Svan workers, especially in winter, in: Racha – Lechkhumi, Imereti, Guria and Kartli. About three, or four months are quite enough for them to learn everyday language, i.e. to learn it at the rate of using it independently, without somebody’s help while traveling, working, or making deals. Poor nature of Svaneti forces Svans to go to work to densely populated regions. Therefore, increases the number of Svan workers, and thereby increases the number of Georgian speaking Svans. It should be also admitted here, that Svan is willing to learn Georgian. There are a lot of examples when a well-to-do Svan arrives to Svaneti together with his workers with the single purpose of learning Grorgian. To this willingness we should add that the Svans are taking pride in knowing the Georgian language…”(B. Nizharadze, II, p.169-170). But we should admit here that B. Nizharadze, about Tskhenistkali Gorge of Svaneti, remarked that “All the children over 7-8 years and all the adult men speak Georgian”. The fact that historically, the Georgian language was spoken in Svaneti, is proved by all the historical documents of the Middle Ages which are composed by Svans. Usually, all papers bear the signature of their author. As a rule they all were Svaneti dwellers. According to B. Nizharadze “…Svans are taking pride in knowing the Georgian language…”, in other words, knowing Georgian was a matter of prestige and in the traditional society, prestige was important. Such prestigious men were Chenili, Makhvshi, Khevistavi, who were regarded with reverence by common community members.

The above materials indicate that the subsistence of Svaneti, as well as of other regions of Georgian highland, was impossible without contacts with lowland, contacts which included trading, together with outside employments (“Lakma”). “The most part of Svaneti population lacked agricultural lands. They had no possibility to grow crops sufficient for satisfying even the minimal needs of their families. Besides, during long winters lasting 5-6 months, the majority of men were not occupied with farming. The works performed in winter, particularly, taking care of cattle (cattle here were feed through mangers all the year round), cleaning roofs from snow and such kind of works could easily be done by women, the old, and children. Therefore during winter, almost all able-bodied men had possibility to go to other regions for work. They were going mostly to Samegrelo, Imereti, Lechkhumi, Guria and Apkhzeti” (A.Charkviani. Svaneti, 1967, p. 159 - 160). Besides, until the middle of the XIX century there were many extended families where several married brothers lived together with their wives and children. Such form of family life was giving Svans the possibility to leave on duty one of their brothers in Svaneti, during winter if necessary. Going away in search of a living was an obstacle for intensive migration processes and therefore in Svaneti were more resident population than the region could provide with bare subsistence.

Svans who went for jobs were cutting wood, processing construction materials (saw), cultivating land in gardens and vineyards, digging trenches. Normally, the final date going away for looking for employment was the end of October and the date of returning in mountains - the beginning of April, i.e. the time of starting agricultural works in Svaneti.

Except Georgian lowland, Svans were trying to find work in North Caucuses, which generally took place in summer. Svans visits to North Caucuses in the course of the XIX century with the purpose of getting jobs there are proven fact. If Svans temporary migration to lowland took place during the whole Middle Ages, the date of starting to move to North Caucuses with the same purpose is unknown. In North Caucuses Svans generally were mowing grass, gathering in the harvest (The Fact of Svans temporary migration to Georgian lowland is also proved by the medieval legends. So called “Shaliani” icon, preserved in the central church of Svaneti - Kvirike and Ivlita’s church of Kala, is considered as brought from Imereti by such Svan workers). According to A. Charkviani they also were building fences. Svans usually spent a month (mainly August) in North Caucuses. In exchange for a month’s work they got cattle, and sometimes money. Generally, they were given a two-three year old bull-calf and often a sheep in addition, the cost of which in tsarist Russia was amounted to 20 rubles. According to A. Charkviani findings (p. 162) in 1899, after returning from Georgian lowland, the Svan workers brought home on average - 130-350 rubles; In 1998 their average earnings amounted to 140 -380 rubles. In the XIX century Svans used to go to North Caucuses in search of job even in winter. By the 1909 archival documents “only in Upper Svaneti, police officer of Svaneti issued, approximately 1646 passports. By that time, population of Upper Svaneti counted 11. 896 heads out of which the number of males came to 6. 000 (A. Charkviani p. 162).

The XIX century press also did not stay indifferent to the event of Svans searching jobs outside of Svaneti: “An able-bodied Svan, is a guest in his family. Three fourth of year he lacks in his hearth; In autumn and winter he works in west Georgia for a trifling sum.” (“Kvali”, # 41, 1900). In scientific literature is stated that “Normally, on outside works were gone only the males of 18 -50, able – bodied and adapted to hard traveling conditions. (A. Gelovani, p. 162).

Svans visits to Georgian lowland were important for one more reason. While being and working there, they were examining closely the places of their possible future settlements and from time to time, many of them settled there for good. More than one family of Svan origination lived there in West Georgia, who after resettlement, changed there surnames into new names. For example, in Okriba, many families living there currently, were migrated from Svaneti (Khorkhomelidze, Shalikiani, Kherkhadze, Kipiani, Sandukhadze, Babukhadia, Meskhoradze, Gvetadze, Sopromadze, Gabriadze, Sirbiladze, Zhorzholadze…) (D. Shavianidze, Okribian family names, 2002).

Thus, such works, Svaneti was closely connected with lowland “it never was static and frozen at one point”. (N. Berdzenishvili). After returning from lowland, Svan workers were introducing new experience and knowledge in Svaneti. Trade – economic relations between mountainous regions and lowland of Georgia were established many centuries ago and had not changed until the XIX-XX centuries. Information about the fact that mountaineers and Svans among them, went away to lowland for trade as early, as at the crossroads of B.C. and A.C., also contains Strabon’s proceedings indicating that 70 kilometers away from Caucasian mountains in Dioskuria (present Sukhumi), The Black Sea coast, were concentrated the people speaking in different languages. According to A. Lamberti, Svans brought home-made goods, felt cloaks, wool, and goats and sheep for selling in Kutaisi.

Georgian historians described even the paths and roads Svans were using to get to lowland. “For getting to lowland from upper Svaneti, people used the following roads: through Latvari, Mushuri, Lasili, Lenkheri, Leshvindi and others. These were access roads to different regions of Georgia. As for North Caucuses, access roads from Svaneti were: Machkhapari, Tsaneri, Tviberi, Bashili, Mestia, Becho, Chubuckevi, and other crossings” (A. Charkviani, p. 164).

Lack of agricultural lands was the main reason for Svans acting as trade mediators between North Caucuses and Georgian lowland. “Rrom Karachian and Balkarian people Svans were getting cattle, horses, goats, as well as felt cloaks, Cherkezian horses, woolen goods and thick felt too cheaply and were reselling double price in “Dadiani’s principality. And Svans were supplying Karachians and Balkarians with chintz and red colored goods bought on the Lechkhumi and sadadiano markets. From their side, Svans from Sadadiano, were selling salt, lead and iron in Upper Svaneti “(Archival data quoted from A. Gelovani’s Thesis p. 165). Besides the above mentioned products, Svans brought dried pears and apples in Karachai-Balkaria (L. Bade),and beautiful frails in exchange for wool, felt cloaks, etc. (Etnographic letters on Svaneti, written by G. Avaliani and G. Zurabiani, Tb., 1973, p. 138).

Recently, in the Georgian press several times appeared information about the fact that western scientific circles show concern about disappearance of small languages, among which are Megruli, Svanuri and Tsova-Tushuri (Batsburi) in Georgia. The time might come when those languages will not be spoken. Therefore, some western funds offer creating alphabet and translating Gospel (“New Testament”) into above languages.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:08 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
Georgia is one of the world countries that is multinational. Historically and to this very day, some small part of Georgians, together with State, literary and church languages, speak kindred Svanuri and Megruli languages (One of such languages was Dvaluri including the XVIII century), as well as Tsovi-tushuri (Batsburi) belonging to Vainakhi group of Caucasian languages. In the course of centuries Megruli, Svanuri and Tsovi-tushuri were formed as only home spoken languages. From the socio-linguistic point of view, they equalize with different dialects of the Georgian language. The residents of historical- ethnographic regions of Samegrelo and Svaneti felt themselves Georgians. Thus, being bilingual was not an interfering factor in definition of their ethnic consciousness. From ethnic history of Georgia is evident that home spoken language is not a main ethnos determinant at all. As proof of this hypothesis, the scientists often give examples of bilingual and trilingual Germans, Chinese, Mordovians and others.

Is there any danger of disappearance of Svan language? Is it possible to give a scientifically well-grounded answer – positive, or negative? Until trying to answer this question, we should admit that, historically the geographic area, where Svanuri had been spoken, was large. Svans inhabited not only the territories of Upper Svaneti, but territories of present Apkhazeti as well. The fact of Svans living on definite territory of Apkhazeti, is first of all proved by toponymies. Historical (former) name of Sukhumi city – “Tskhumi” could be explained only through the Svan language and means – hornbeam. There is similar toponymy (“Tskhumari”) in Enguri Gorge of Svaneti. From ethnographic – linguistic data of historical sources we learn that Svans were inhabited in historical-ethnographic area of present Lechkhumi and Racha and in the mountainous part of adjoining Samegrelo.

The Svan language (as well as Megrelian and Abkhazian) “bit pieces from the edges” of the Georgian language and we think, stopped where it had to. Change the Svan language into Georgian was first of all caused by the fact that State, literary and what was more significant, church languages was Georgian. At the same time, population migrations and assimilation processes were of no small importance in this respect. But, nevertheless, geographic environment was crucial. Georgian speaking groups stopped to move deeply, to mountains. In the closed traditional mountain society, spreading of the Georgian language (at the expense of replacing Svanuri) was not only slowed down, but stopped.

In traditional society of mountain, the conjugal relations played the most significant role. It is the well-known and proved fact that language overlapping was often caused by conjugal relations. In case the representative of one language unit marries the member of another one, overlapping of languages takes place. First it starts with vocabulary penetration from one language into another, and then a two-three generation bilingual period begins. The winner is that group which is more numerous. At the same time, it is very important which of these languages is state, literary and church. In the view of ethnic and language changes, the importance of social factor role is also proven in history (e.g. The settlement of Dagestan free Khundzs (Avars) and Naurs in East Kakheti at the XVI century with the support of Turks and Iranians, caused the assimilation of Georgian farmers with “Leki” (Dagestan). They preferred to escape from feudal exploitation and live in free communal relations of Dagestan, which resulted in their assimilation with Dagestans. The Social factor also appeared decisive for Germans from Lorraine and Alsace).

In spite of the fact that during centuries the Georgian language for Svans (in the scopes of present Svaneti) had been State, literary and church, it could not cover and replace the Svan language in Svaneti. What was the reason of it? The reason, as it was stated above, was in conjugal relations. This does not mean that it was prohibited for Svans to speak Georgian. Such kind of marriages always occurred and is occurring now, but the main thing was the quantitative factor, the percentage. The percentage of Georgian speaking women getting married to Svan men, historically was, and still is, small. Traditionally, giving a woman, from lowland’s natural - geographic environment, to marry a man from geographic environment mountain of mountain, was rather rare. Such kind of conjugal relations was characteristic not only to Svaneti, but to the whole perimeter of Georgian mountainous and adjoining lowland regions. It is a simple truth, that the lowlanders seldom marry the mountaineers. Invert processes are more frequent. Climate, natural, and economic conditions were better in lowland. The Georgian women tried to avoid worsening their living conditions. As for women from highlands, they were willing to marry lowlanders. That was the way of improving living conditions for them. Consequently, for Georgian mountain natives, marriage circle was limited to women living in mountains. In this respect, Svaneti was no exception. Svan men were finding partners for conjugal ties in Svaneti, in Svan spoken circles. Thus, the maintenance of the Svan language in Svaneti is caused by conjugal relations – Svan speakers marrying each other.

What is the situation in today’s Svaneti? More favorable modern conditions, means of communications promote the contacts between Georgian and Svan speakers and therefore there is a more probability of marriages, or rather, Georgian women get married to Svan men.

We carried out a kind of specific sociological research. Before reviewing the results of this research, we should admit that Soviet ethnographic science showed great interest in the questions of bilingual marriages. The reason is very simple-in the course of Soviet period, the Russian officials were very interested in extension of language area. That is why the Russian Soviet ethnographic science paid great attention to mixed marriages throughout the whole Soviet Union. One of the priority directions of Moscow Institute of Ethnography was study of mixed, bi-ethnic marriages, or rather, marriages of Russians to representatives of other ethnic groups.

Soviet ethnographers (e.g. Academician Bromlei) through their researches found out that in cases of mixed marriages, one of the languages is maintained, if such marriages do not exceed 15%. If it is more than 15%, there is a risk possibility for one of the language groups (family).

Based on the above theory, we carried out the following socio-ethnological research on the territory of today’s Svaneti, both in Tskenistkali and Enguri Gorges. According to territorial communities and villages we selectively found out language characteristics of married couples; Who are the conjugal partners? Particularly, where are Svans wives from? With whom they enter into marriage?

Today Mestia settlement, the center of Enguri gorge of Svaneti (Mestia region), is the unity of several former villages and territorial units, out of which some are traditional settlements and others are- new. The old traditional settlements are: Lagami, Lanchvili, Seti, and Lekhtagi. We studied the identity of married couples in each village. From 33 couples of Lagami, 32 Svan men’s wives are Svans. Only one man’s wife is from Samegrelo. In Lalveri, from 28 married couples 27 are Svans and here too only one woman is from lowland. In Lalaidi are registered 29 couples, from which 27 are locals. One family’s daughter-in-law is Ukrainian and another one’s -is Balkarian, from North Caucuses. In Legabi we recorded 17 married couples. 16 couples are Svans, only one family has a daughter -in- law from Tbilisi, who is ethnically Ossetin. There are 58 married couples in Airport settlement, 52 of them are locals and only 6 came from other regions: 3 - from Samegrelo, 1-from Tbilisi, 1 -from Kacheti, 1 is not Georgian ethnically, she is Ukrainian. From 45 married couples in Lanchvali, only two are not locals: One is Georgian from Batumi and the second is Russian. In Seti region from 145 couples 128 are locals, 17 – are mixed, among them 8 are from East Georgia, 7-from West Georgia, 1- from Russia, and 1- from Ukraine. According to current data, there are 20 married couples in Lekhtagi. Only one of them is from West Georgia (from historical-ethnographic part, Imereti);19 – are locals.

Thus, if we count the results of Mestia settlement, we will get the following: From 375 married couples, 344 are the natives (i.e. 344 Svan men are married to 344 Svan women). The quantity of women from other territories is only – 31. Their percentage in Mestia settlement slightly exceeds 8 %. There home spoken language, according to research results, is mainly Svanuri. Not only ethnic Georgians, but non-ethnic Georgians as well (Russians, Ukrainians, Balkarians) have a perfect command of the Svan language.

In Lendjeri society (territorial community) we registered the results of two villages. There are 50 married couples in Nesguni village. 147 of them are natives and only 3 women are from other regions: from East Georgia, West Georgia and Apkhazeti (Gali region). In Lashtkhveri village there are 30 local married couples. Only one woman is from West Georgia (Samegrelo) and 1- from Ukraine. In total, from 82 couples recorded by us, only 5 women are natives, which amount to 1.3 %.

Добавлено (2007-03-05, 6:08 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
There are five small villages in Kala community nowadays. We registered only 20 married couples there. All of them are locals. Thus, not Svan wives quantity is equal to 0% here.

We managed to study nine villages in Latali community. From 154 married couples 145 are locals. Only nine women are from Samegrelo, Apkhazeti, Lechkhumi, Imereti. In Latali not Svan wives percentage is about 6%.

According to three villages (Tviberi, Lezgari, Labsqaldi) results in Tskhumari community, there are 58 married couples there. 50 couples are Svanuri speaking. 8 women come from outside of Svaneti. Among them are 4 Russians, who Svan men married when being in military service in Russia. The percentage of not Svan wives here equals to 14 %. But if we exclude the 4 wives of Russian nationality (as they are not Georgians), the percentage index will be only – 7.

In Becho village community of Upper Svaneti, By the results of three villages (Ushkhvanari, Tskhekvani, Kartvani) there are 72 married couples there. 71 couples are locals. Only 1 is from Imereti, what makes 1, 2%.

From 85 married couples of Nakai community, only 6 are not locals, but for all that, 5 are Russians. In total, not native wives in Svaneti equals to 7%. With the exception of wives of Russian nationality, percentage will be 1, 8.

From 90 married couples of Etseri community, only 6 women are from other historical-ethnographic regions of Georgia, i.e. 83 couples are natives. The percentage of non- native wives is 7, 5%.

The situation in three villages (Chvabe, Tsalda, and Zhabe) of Mulakhi community is such: From 50 married couples 44 are locals and 6 – are mixed. The quantity of not native wives is 3.3%.

In the village board of Kaishi are registered 60 married couples. With only one mixed couple, which means – 0.6%?

Totally, in Upper Svaneti, i.e. in Enguri Gorge (Administration region of Mestia), quantity of non-native wives slightly exceeds 5%. It means that the quantity of Georgian speaking wives and not Georgian speaking wives do not create danger to the Svan language. Visually, it is obvious that not local wives speak the Svan language fluently and home speaking language for them is Svanuri as well. Only for some of them it is difficult to pronounce some specific sounds peculiar to the Svan language.

With respect to this question, the situation in Tskenistskali Gorge (Lower Svaneti, i.e. Administration region of Lentekhi) is such; We possess data of the following three villages: Zhakhunderi, Chukuli and Chikhareshi. From 50 married couples of Zhakhunderi – 6 women are from Imereti and Lechkhumi. Number of wives of non-Svan origin -is 12%.

Chukuli village have only 2 (one from Lechkhumi and another from Imereti) not local daughter-in-laws from the registered 45 married couples. Number of wives not speaking the Svan language in Chukuli is – 4.4%.

From 30 married couples registered in Chikhareshi village, 3 women came from other parts of Georgia, i.e. 10%.

Data of above mentioned Tskenistskali Gorge (Lentekhi region) is as follows: 93% are Svan speaking locals. Only 7% - are Georgian speaking, according to ethnographic data, and this 7% speaks fluently the Svan language. Thus, the number of non-Svan origin wives does not create any danger to the Svan language. Nevertheless, significant amount of Georgian vocabulary units entered in one of the three communities of Tskenistskali Gorge, Lentekhi. This is natural, because Lentekhi region of Tskenistskali Gorge is very close to Lechkhumi (Tsageri region). At the same time, means of communications (especially electronic mail) have great influence on way of life today and in the Svan language, appearance of not only Georgian, but also foreign words, is not unexpected. Svaneti had never been closed and isolated, especially nowadays. Among other things, Svans try to maintain there home spoken language. In this regard is remarkable one innovation; During feast Svans (if there is no person who does not speak Svanuri), they are competing with each other not in eloquent toasts, but in not mixing Georgian words while saying the toasts. They say that such people are quite a few.

The only thing that represents danger to the Svan language is - intensive migration. We pointed out above and would like to repeat here again, that this historical –ethnographic region had always been “nourishing” Georgian lowland. It is true that surplus population used to move to lowland, but about the same population number always remained in Svaneti; These processes were, more or less, stable. During last two decades began intensive resettlements in lowland of East and West Georgia, which was caused by ecological catastrophes (landslip, avalanche).

Different regions of Svaneti are densely inhabited with Svans and this provides maintaining the Svan language. But in the regions of resettlement there is no guarantee saving it. Most likely, this language will be forgotten there. The main factor of keeping the Svan language by now, is the strongly developed traditional ties of relationships. The most of the migrants left close relatives (brothers, cousins) in mountains of Svaneti, and they are keeping in touch with them. At the same time, Svaneti is a kind of summer resort for the most migrants. For the sake of not losing relationships with the migrants, Svans established a new holiday – family gatherings. Such holidays are held during old community and religious celebrations. It turns out that they are trying to kill two birds with one stone. We witnessed such celebration in Mutsdi village of Cholauri community located on Lentekhi region of Tskenistskali Gorge. Two families – Khabuliani and Kvastiani - are dwelling in this village. In June 28, 2003, there gathered the representatives of the families mentioned above and celebrated religious holiday, together with the locals, and visited their ancestors graves. There gathered 350 people both, locals and migrants, at the holiday we attended in Mutsdi village. Usually, such gatherings end with feast.

In 1968-1969 from Enguri Gorge (Kala, Mulakhi, Latali, Ushguli, Ipari) many families were resettled in the suburban zone (Lilo and Krtsanisi villages) of Tbilisi. Svans created compact settlements in Zugdidi, Tsalendjikha, Chkhorotsku and Senaki regions.

1987 turned out to be tragic for Svaneti. In a month’s time avalanche, landslip and flood destroyed approximately, 2.000 houses; Died 87 victims; The general reason of human losses and demolition was that people ignored ancestral rules of treating nature properly: woods were cut, lands were cultivated, and houses were built where one must not do that. Left without a roof over their head, they were resettled in Kvemo Kartli regions, in East Georgia. That’s how it appeared Svans settlements in the regions of Bolnisi (280 families), Dmanisi (800 families), Gardabani (350 families), Sagaredjo (55 families), Tetritskaro (800 families). In the latter migrants from Lentekhi region prevailed. At the same time, to West Georgia (Ozurgeti, Khoni, Khobi) moved 140 families. Later, new migrants joined to upper region settlements dwellers.

Such organized Svan migrations to lowland regions turned out to be rather negative for Svaneti. The number of villages were either emptied, or left with minimal population. For example, as is registered, by 1994 instead of 120 families in Ushguli village stayed only 35 families, in Chazhashi – 5 families instead of 20, in Zhamushi – 10 instead of 90 families. If there lived 75 households in Adishi, after migration there stayed only 40 of them. 170 families were reduced to 40 in Kalashi. (see L Nizharadze, Svans Migrations and Areas of Their Resettlement on the Georgian Territory. “Encyclopedia of Georgia, I, p.2005, p. 139).

Because of flood and landslip, the risk of deserting Svaneti, especially increased in recent years. According to 1979 records, Lentekhi region was inhabited with 12.974 people, while in 2002 this figure reduced to 8.991. In 1979 number of residents of Mestia was 17.884 and 2002 – 14 248. During last three decades, Svan population decreased in number and became - 7 319. The government tries to help, but that is not enough. The most part of the population requires resettling them in lowland. Uncared and bad roads also create additional difficulties for staying in Svaneti. In order to maintain this unique historical – ethnographic region of Georgia with its traditions, habits and ways, and what is the most important, with its language, it is necessary to stay to live there. There are a lot of unique Christian churches, crosses and icons in Svaneti. Only in Svaneti we have original towers characteristic only to this region. In case of deserting Svaneti nobody will take care of them. The only way for saving material culture, life way, language is development of tourism, creation of corresponding infrastructure, which need enormous investments. Unfortunately, Georgian government does not possess such possibilities by now.