Sediment (Alluvium) Deposited by a River as a Means of Acquiring Property Rights in Roman and Ancient Georgian Law

Abstract

The article discusses sediment as one of the sources of acquisition of property rights in Roman and ancient Georgian law. Even Roman jurists drew attention to the fact that the flow of the river sometimes led to an increase or decrease in land plots adjacent to the channel. The article examines the rules related to sediment in Roman law and Georgian feudal law, based on the analysis of which the types of sediment were distinguished, in the form of insignificant increase of land over time. Attention is also focused on the scope of the right, which was extended to the land that arose on river’s bottom as a result of the drying of its bed. Research has shown that under Roman law, the rights of owners of land adjoining a river depended entirely on where the land was split, whether in the middle or closer to either bank, due to the fact that the river flooded the other side. Based on the comparative analysis of Roman law and ancient Georgian law, the fundamental difference between their approaches was highlighted. The national law shows more conservatism when regulating the legal relationship arising due to the change of the river bed, which is also emphasized in the article. Due to the scarcity of the legal base on sediment, in order to achieve the goal of the research, using the analogy of the law, the rules for obtaining ownership rights to minerals are discussed, since it is closest to sediment.

Keywords: ownership acquisition, sediment, mineral.

Introduction

The article is the first attempt to study the “Monalekh” (sand from sea or river) to acquire property rights in ancient Georgian law, which makes this issue relevant. The research subject of the article is the types of precipitation and their accompanying legal consequences. The research was carried out in Roman and ancient Georgian law, using the method of comparative legal analysis. The task of the research is to determine the common and distinguishing features of these two legal systems regarding rainfall. The difficulty of the research was due to the lack of primary sources, as well as secondary and tertiary sources in the old Georgian law, which is why we used the analogy of the law - through the acquisition of property rights to minerals.

1. Legal characterization of precipitation

Roman law is the most important source for the study of the legal character of the “Monalekh” because it clearly states what the “Monalekh” means and what kind of legal relations it creates.

The Romans believed that if a river cut through its bed during a long flood, it became public property.[1] Public property was the common "property" of individuals, and they could proportionately benefit from this property.[2] The Romans distinguished a public good, a property over which the right of ownership can be extended, from a good that cannot be owned by its very nature.[3] Roman law considered things common to natural law as such - "air, running water, sea and, therefore, the seashore".[4] The latter is no one's property; everyone can enjoy its bounty just like the sea.[5] Nor could the land and sand under the sea become an object of ownership.[6] However, as the river left its old bed, its bottom became the property of the owners of the land on the river bank.[7] As noted in the Institutions of Justinian, the owners of this contiguous plot would acquire the right "in proportion to the length of the bank belonging to each plot", and the newly cut bed would again be subject to public law.[8] Accordingly, if the river were to return to its previous bed, the previous legal regime would apply to the new, dry bed.

River flooding was especially beneficial in areas where agriculture depended entirely on irrigation. For example, in Egypt, the overflowing Nile overflowed its banks, enriching the soil with sediments in addition to water. That is why the Egyptians referred to their country as the "black land" - in Egyptian "Kemet".[9]

2. Types of precipitation

According to the institutions of Justinian and Gaius, the alluvium is the land that water has added to the land in the form of additional land in such a way[10] that the time of addition cannot be determined.[11] Roman law was in a way faced with the question of acquiring the right to increase ownership of land, regardless of whether the increase of land happened gradually or all at once. If a part of the land was torn away by the river at once and it was attached to the neighboring land, it would still be considered a constituent part of this plot.[12] This concerned the increase, not along the entire coast, but in separate places on the shore, also in the form of a cape.[13] According to the institutions of Gaius, according to natural law, the right of the owner of the land immediately extends to such an increase,[14] while the institutions of Justinian, at the same time, consider it important that the increase of land that has been cut off should remain as long as possible with the land of others, so that if trees were planted on the piece of land.[15]

Therefore, when a river bank is cut off by the flow of a river or other processes and added to someone's land, the origin of the right of ownership over the cut-off part is determined by how it is added to another person's land.[16] Here it is important how firmly the torn land was fixed where the river pushed it.[17] According to M. Bartoshek's definition, avulsion, i.e., the ownership right to a piece of land cut off by the flow of a river arose only after the final connection,[18] for example, if the places of their connection were covered with common vegetation or, as already mentioned, the tree on the connected land took root in this soil as well.[19]

The plot to which the soil was added in the form of precipitation became a similar part of what was added.[20] In the sixth book of Justinian's Digests, it is indicated that in a lawsuit related to a plot of land, if there was a demand for such land, this requirement was transferred to the additional land as well.[21] The main plot of land, together with the alluvial land, was considered as one whole plot.

Roman law discusses the river and the island in the sea. The formation of the island may have occurred by bringing land detached from elsewhere in the river bed or lowering the bed. An island formed in the middle of a river, according to Roman law, became the co-ownership of the owners of the adjacent land plots on both sides of the river.[22] If the island is not in the middle, but closer to some shore, then it belongs to the person who owns the coastal land,[23] and "if the river divides somewhere and then joins again below, making someone's land an island, that land belongs to that person", to whom it belonged before.[24]

The owner of the land would also gain ownership of the things that the river washed onto his land,[25] for example, firewood and building materials. The rights of the neighbors of the coast on the rise of the rivers were determined by the law and did not require possession.[26]

Thus, the dry bed and the river island are considered to be independent land parcels, in contrast to alluvial and avulso, which are considered to be constituent parts of raised riparian parcels. Accordingly, different regimes of acquisition of ownership rights were in effect for these items. The same norms are applied on the coastline of the island as on the shore of terrestrial rivers.

3. Precipitation in ancient Georgian law
3.1. First information about precipitation

In the sources of ancient Georgian law and ethnographic materials, there is almost no information about the river's precipitation. However, the first reports about it can already be found in the works of foreign authors.

Strabo wrote that he had heard of gold mining in Svaneti: "It is said that the winter torrents bring gold, and the barbarians collect (gold) with pierced leaves and furred skins: hence the myth of the golden fleeced[27] ram."[28] He brings sand. The residents build shaggy sheepskins in the rivers and collect the sand that settles on them.”[29]

The author of the 2nd century, Gaius Plinius, noted that the successor of the golden verse would be found in the rivers of "Svaneti and the state in general".[30]

The extraction of gold in the springs was associated with the flooding caused by the melting of the glaciers of the Enguri River, which had significant property consequences for the population living in Svaneti, and especially for the ruling class.

3.2. Rules for acquiring ownership rights to sediment

Apart from the Vakhtang law book, none of the local monuments of the old Georgian law provide for legal norms regulating rainfall. Vakhtang law also discusses this issue within the framework of "water proteins", of which only one of the two constituent articles, Article 184, contains legal norms. The title of Article 185, "If a landslide were to tear you away", only reflects the desire of the judge to settle this issue legally, since no legal norms are included in this article at all. As I. Dolidze explains that no other manuscript of this law book contains its text.[31]

Sources of foreign law operating in Georgia, Georgian versions of Greek and Armenian law, fill this gap to a small extent. Here we note that the relevant norms of Greek law in the matter of precipitation are based on Roman law. Article 269 of the law "for the island of the sea and the river" includes several legal norms, for example, this version of the Greek law recognizes the right of occupation on the middle part of the island of the sea: "Whoever first catches an alag in that middle, that alag will be his and no one else has a hand."[32] It is noteworthy that the source does not say anything about other parts of the island, for example, the ownership of the coastline. We think that the issue of attribution of the island to "Shua Alagi" is completely inappropriate here because when the island was acquired,[33] with the right of occupation, the entire island became its appropriator.

One of the norms of Article 269 of the Georgian version of Greek law, like Justinian's institutions, also discusses the peculiarity of the river flow, which consists in dividing the bed into two parts. Based on this, he establishes a rule for assigning the place allocated during the natural flow of water in the middle of the river: "For those who have villages across and across, they should divide the land between them" (269).[34] On the land of the middle belt of the river, its bordering villages, as independent legal entities, would acquire an equal share of ownership rights in the land. The basis for obtaining ownership rights is the location of the newly allocated land. Therefore, if the river covered this land with water again, the ownership rights of the villages would be terminated.

In the same article, the issue of obtaining the right is regulated in such a situation when the river flows from the bed of a village to the side of a village and because of this, the land is added to the bank of the other side. Greek law considers the new owner of such an increase to be the one to whose land a new plot of land has been added due to the change in the flow of water. The lawmaker explains that this right may be temporary, because "water has no faith, today it spilled over there, tomorrow it will spill over here."[35] This nature of water is also taken into account by Vakhtang law, although it expresses the opposite view when determining the right. The first norm of Article 184 of its law is formulated in this way: "It will be and is created, the river water will dump the old flow, sometimes it flows there and sometimes here, and it is avoided, it is our water and what is left to me is mine." But this will not change. When the mouth of this river has been built for generations, beyond or beyond, where there is no water at that time, and these villages are pressed to the mouth of that water, it must be held again."[36]

The content of the norm shows that Vakhtang ignores the new situation caused by the change of the water bed and protects the property rights of the owners of the adjacent plots of the river in the exact limits within which been held by them "for generations". In this case, two circumstances are the basis for the immutability of the border. The first reason is that these plots were inherited by the owners for a long time, and the legislator does not consider it appropriate to disrupt the border between them due to natural events, and, on the other hand, due to the frequent changes in the river bed, it was not in the interests of the judicial authorities to consider the dispute that arose every time.

It should be noted here that throwing water without permission was prohibited and entailed punishment. According to the Bichvinti Yadgar, whoever hunted the water of Bichvinti without asking the Catholicos "for profit", i.e. artificially changed the bed of the river, had to pay twenty thousand whites for the chair.[37]

4. Analogy of the law - property rights to minerals

In the introduction of the work, we mentioned that we consider it permissible to argue that the acquisition of ownership rights to precious metals and other things mixed with sedimentary soil should be applied by analogy to the law, and the legal norms that were defined for obtaining ownership rights to minerals should be applied.

The law of Mkhitar Ghosh designates the king, queen, and sometimes princes as the owner of "exposed" rocks or other substances in any place, city, or village.[38] Gold and pearls belong to the king, and silver to the queen. If these precious stones were found in the kingdom, the king could give a share to the prince at his will, or at least take it himself; Copper, tin, iron, salt, Sabi, borax, kerosene, and pitch belonged to the princes, "by great grace and honor from the sovereign," for which the princes had to express gratitude to the king.[39] This gratitude was probably expressed in giving a share to the king. The use and trade of sulfur, frankincense, Gunda, Jaoz and other such substances were allowed for everyone. It is also mentioned here that they can "yatistaon", that is, they can determine a tithe as a value during the trade.

Among these properties, the named pearl is found only in the sea or on the seashore. Unlike Roman law, according to which precious stones and pearls found on the seashore immediately became the property of the finder based on natural law,[40] under feudal law only the main owner of the country, the king, had the right to own them.

According to the judgments of Ioane Batonishvili, the mining of minerals should be carried out either by the king at his own expense or leased. The received ore, be it gold, silver, or copper, had to be divided in half, and the cost of the workers had to be borne by the tenant.[41]

Income from minerals was important for the rulers of individual kingdoms. One of the first requests of Solomon II to the Russian emperor was that the king should not be left without a share of all ore mined and processed in Imereti - be it gold, silver or any other.[42]

5. Influence of climate on precipitation

Other primary sources about the “Monalekh” (sand from sea or river) are hardly found, and this topic has not been studied by researchers of the history of law. Scattered reports in the literature about gold content in sedimentary sands of rivers of Western Georgia - Rion, Tekhura, and Tshniskali, as well as in Kvemo Kartli, in the beds of the Mashavera River, are insufficient to study the issue. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to find out why legislators paid so little attention to the issue of land precipitation regulation and why customs of a corresponding nature were not developed in a country rich in rivers. In this regard, attention should also be paid to the following circumstances: the frequency of rainfall, volume and nature of rivers, and whether these environmental factors created the necessity, at least by customary law to fill the scarce legislative space on the river bank land.

It is established that torrential rains in the territory of Georgia, which are more local in nature, despite their short duration, caused considerable damage to the valleys of small rivers, for example, landslides often occurred in the territory of Tbilisi, as well as on the left banks of the Alazani River.[43] But the main importance of the flooding of large rivers was the long-term and large-area rainfall.[44] The area of ​​flood-flood distribution depends on the duration of the rains, rather than the amount of precipitation falling in a short period.[45] Such floods and resulting torrents caused great damage to the banks of the river and emptied the soil, which was transported to another area in the form of debris. Western Georgia was particularly affected by such rains, because unlike Eastern Georgia.[46]

The study of the nature of mountain rivers, for example, in Tusheti, showed that floods were formed only at the expense of snowy and icy waters in Alazan of Tusheti and vice versa.[47] Even the precipitation of summer seasons does not cause a significant increase in runoff.[48] Precipitation is brought more to those rivers that have a sufficient slope of fall; Such are the watersheds located between Enguri, Khobisqali, Ochkhomura and Tekhura.[49] The granite stones were brought to Samegrelo by the strong stream of Enguri in the form of sediments.[50]

conclusion

The research showed that out of the monuments of national law, only the law of Vakhtang VI, and even partially, considered it necessary to make the legal regime of “Monalekh” (sand from sea or river) a subject of special regulation. It should be noted that monuments translated from abroad do not pay special attention to this issue either. We think that the source of the corresponding provision of the Vakhtang law should be the local customary law, which the punishing king used as the basis of his norm. Unlike the Roman law, which, in turn, is the source of the Georgian version of the Greek law, the ancient Georgian local law did not provide for the establishment of a right different from the previous one on adjacent plots due to the change of the river bed. As for the items brought out by the sediment, it is possible that the finds were spread over them.

Bibliography

SOURCES:

1. Greek Law, (1963). Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Monuments of Georgian Law, I, Dolidze is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary), Tbilisi. (In Georgian)


2. Yadgar of Bichvinti [1525-1550], (1965). II, Dolidze Is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Science. (In Georgian)


3. Gaius Institutions, (2011). Monuments of Roman Law Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: University Publishing House. (In Georgian)


4. Articles of request of Solomon II to Alexander I on the Confirmation of his rights to the Kingdom of Imereti [1804], (1965). Monuments of Georgian Law, II, Dolidze Is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi. (In Georgian)


5. Law of Batonishvili's Vakhtang, (1963). Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Monuments of Georgian law, I, Dolidze I (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.), Tbilisi. (In Georgian)


6. Law Moses, (1963). Mkhitar Ghosh Law Version, Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Monuments of Georgian law, I, Dolidze (Mt. ed., survey and lexicon), Tbilisi. (In Georgian)


7. Ioane Bagrationi, Sjuldeba (Project of State Reforms of the Kingdom of Kartl-Kakheti), (1975). Surguladze Iv. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary), Publishing House of TSU named after Stalin, 8. (In Georgian)


8. Digests of Justinian, Monuments of Roman Law, Introductory Constitutions, Book One, Book Two. (2012). Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Iv. Javakhishvili house TSU Publishing House. (In Georgian)


9. Digests of Justinian. (2014). Monuments of Roman Law, Book Six. Surguladze N., (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: TSU Publishing House. (In Georgian)


10. Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary), Tbilisi: Meridian. (In Georgian)

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE:

1. Windscheid , (1887). Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, Band I. (In German)


2. Dernburg G., (1956), Pandekty, Property Law. T. 1, ch. 2.St. Petersburg: university printing house. (In Russian)


3. Pukhta G.F., (1874). Course of Roman City Law, printing house "Modern. Izv.". (In Russian)


4. Figurovsky N. (1928). Livny in the Caucasus, Moscow. (In Russian)


5. Garcia-Garido M.H. (2005). Roman Private Law, M., 351. (In Russian)


6. Gamkrelidze G., Firtskhalava M., Kifiani G., (2005). Issues of the military history of ancient Georgia, Tbilisi: Artanuji, 6. Add. Appian, Wars of Mithridates. (In Georgian)


7. Garishvili M., Khoferia M., (2014). History of the law of foreign countries. Tbilisi: Meridian. (In Georgian)


8. Vakhania E., (1957). On the age of the Colchis series. Bulletin of the Academy of the USSR, vol. XVIII, No. 3. (In Georgian)


9. Vladimirov L., (1957). for the investigation of the runoff of Tusheti rivers. Bulletin of the Academy of the USSR, vol. XVIII, No. 3. (In Georgian)


10. Kereselidze D., (2009). The most General Systematic Concepts of Private L Tbilisi: Ashsi. (In Georgian)


11. Kilasonia I., (2004). Property rights in Roman and Ancient Georgian L Kutaisi. (In Georgian)


12. Kordzakhia M., (1948). Climatic regime of main meteorological elements in Georgia. Tbilisi: USSR Academy Publishing House, Vol. III, plot. (In Georgian)


13. Essays on the history of Georgia, (1970). Georgia from Ancient Times to the 4th Century AD. Melikishvili G. (Ed.), Tbilisi: Soviet Georgia. (In Georgian)


14. Chagunava r., (2006). Golden Fleece. Georgian Woman, No. 1-2. (In Georgian)

DICTIONARIES:

1. Bartoshek M., (1989). Roman Law, Concepts, Terms, D Moscow: legal literature. (In Russian)

Footnotes

[1] Dernburg G., (1956), Pandekty, Property Law. T. 1, ch. 2. St. Petersburg: University Printing house 101.

[2] Kereselidze D., (2009). The most General Systematic Concepts of Private Law. Tbilisi: Ashsi, 227. Sead. Bernhard Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, Band I, 1887, #146, 468.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Digests of Justinian, Monuments of Roman Law, Introductory Constitutions, Book One, Book Two. (2012). Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: TSU Publishing House, 109.

[5] Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary), Tbilisi: Meridian, 53.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Dernburg G., (1956), Pandekty, Property Law. T. 1, ch. 2. St. Petersburg: University Printing House 102.

[8]Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Meridian, 57-58.

[9] Garishvili M., Khoferia M., (2014). History of the Law of Foreign Countries. Tbilisi: Meridian, 36.

[10] Institutions of Justinian, (2014). Monuments of Roman Law, Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Meridian, 57.

[11] Gaius Institutions, (2011). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: University Publishing House, 70.

[12] Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Meridian, 57.

[13] Dernburg G., (1956), Pandekty, Property Law. T. 1, ch. 2. St. Petersburg: University Printing house 102.

[14] Gaius Institutions, (2011). Monuments of Roman Law Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: University Publishing House, 70.

[15] Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman Law, Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary), Tbilisi: Meridian, 57.

[16] Pukhta G.F., (1874). Course of Roman City Law, Printing House “Modern. Izv.", 432.

[17] Dernburg G., (1956), Pandekty, Property Law. T. 1, ch. 2. St. Petersburg: University Printing House 102.

[18] Bartoshek, M., (1989). Roman Law, Concepts, Terms, Definitions. Moscow: Legal Literature, 54.

[19] Dernburg G., (1956), Pandekty, Property Law. T. 1, ch. 2. St. Petersburg: University Printing House, 102.

[20] Digests of Justinian. (2014). Monuments of Roman Law, Book Six. Surguladze N., (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: TSU Publishing House, 144.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Gaius Institutions, (2011). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary), Tbilisi: University Publishing House, 71; Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary), Tbilisi: Meridian, 57.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman Law. Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Meridian, 57.

[25] Kilasonia I., (2004). Property rights in Roman and ancient Georgian law. Kutaisi, 2004, 33. See García-Garido М.Х. (2005). Roman Private Law, M., 351.

[26] Dernburg G., (1956). Pandekty, Veschnoe pravo. T. 1, ch. 2. St.Petersburg: universitetskaya tipografiya, 103.

[27]An anonymous author of the 2nd century BC believed that the Golden Fleece was a chemistry book written on sheepskin, in which the rules for obtaining gold by chemical means are given. According to Zarax of Pergamon, the method of gold writing mentioned in the etras was conveyed in the golden fleece. However, Strabo's report must be infallible, because the geographer's uncle, his mother's brother, also ruled Colchis for some time, and Strabo would have real information at hand. See. Chagunava R., (2006). Golden Fleece, Georgian Woman, No. 1-2, 39.

[28] Essays on the history of Georgia, (1970). Georgia from Ancient Times to the 4th century AD. Melikishvili G. (Ed.). Tbilisi: Soviet Georgia, 324. Add. Strabo, XI, 2, 19.

[29] Gamkrelidze G., Firtskhalava M., Kifiani G., (2005). Issues of the military history of ancient Georgia, Tbilisi: Artanuji, 6. Add. Appian, Wars of Mithridates, 103.

[30] Gamkrelidze G., Firtskhalava M., Kifiani G., (2005). Issues of the military history of ancient Georgia, Tbilisi: Artanuji, 6. Add. NH, XXXIII.

[31] Law of Batonishvili's Vakhtang, (1963). Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Ksdz, I, Dolidze is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.), Tbilisi, 527.

[32] Greek Law, (1963). Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Ksdz, I, Dolidze is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.), Tbilisi, 190.

[33] Institutions of Justinian, (2002). Monuments of Roman law, Surguladze N. (Translator, Preface, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Meridian, 57.

[34] Greek Law, (1963). Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Ksdz, I, Dolidze is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.). Tbilisi, 190.

[35] Greek Law, (1963). Collection of law books of Vakhtang VI, Ksdz, I, Dolidze is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.). Tbilisi, 190.

[36] Law of Batonishvili's Vakhtang, (1963). Collection of law books of Vakhtang VI, Ksdz, I, Dolidze is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.), Tbilisi, 527.

[37] Yadgar of Bichvinti [1525-1550], (1965). II, Dolidze Is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: Science, 182.

[38] Law Moses, (1963). Mkhitar Ghosh Law Version, Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Ksdz, I, i. Dolidze (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.), Tbilisi, 289.

[39] Law Moses, (1963). Mkhitar Ghosh Law Version, Collection of Law Books of Vakhtang VI. Ksdz, I, i. Dolidze (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary.), Tbilisi, 290.

[40] Digests of Justinian, (2012). Monuments of Roman Law, Introductory Constitutions, Book One, Book Two. Surguladze N., (edit., precit., note., lex. and research)., Tbilisi: Iv. Javakhishvili house TSU Publishing House, 109.

[41] Ioane Bagrationi, Sjuldeba (project of state reforms of the Kingdom of Kartl-Kakheti), (1975). Surguladze Iv. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary), Publishing House of TSU named after Stalin, 8.

[42] Articles of request of Solomon II to Alexander I on the confirmation of his rights to the kingdom of Imereti [1804], (1965). Ksdz, II, Dolidze Is. (Editor-in-Chief, Notes and Glossary). Tbilisi: 561.

[43] Kordzakhia M., (1948). Climatic regime of main meteorological elements in Georgia. Vsgi works. Tbilisi: USSR Academy Publishing House, Vol. III, plot 1, 59.

[44] Ibid.; See Figurovsky N. (1928). Livny in the Caucasus, Moscow.

[45] Kordzakhia M., (1948). Climatic regime of main meteorological elements in Georgia. Tbilisi: USSR Academy Publishing House, Vol. III, plot 1, 61.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Vladimirov L., (1957). for the investigation of the runoff of Tusheti rivers. Bulletin of the Academy of the USSR, vol. XVIII, No. 3, 311-312.

[48] Ibid, 313.

[49] Vakhania E., (1957). On the age of the Colchis series. Bulletin of the Academy of the USSR, vol. XVIII, No. 3, 318.

[50] Ibid, 319.