Georgia

A. F. Aslanikashvili; A. B. Baghdasaryan; S. G. Rustamov

This paper reviews the geographical atlases of the three Transcaucasian republics—Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—published in the early 1960s. It notes that all three atlases were issued in large editions in both the respective national languages and Russian, with their formats, bindings, and main map scales (1:1,000,000 and 1:1,500,000 for Armenia; 1:1,500,000 and 1:2,500,000 for Azerbaijan and Georgia) determined by the size and configuration of each republic. The content generally follows the recommendations of the 1960 Moscow publication 'National Atlases,' yet each atlas incorporates thematic maps reflecting the specific natural and socio-economic conditions of its republic. By tabulating the number and percentage of maps devoted to natural conditions, population, national economy, culture and public health, and history, the paper systematically compares the structure and content of the three atlases.

И. Б. Рослова

This article reviews the 1964 Atlas of the Georgian SSR, the final volume in a series of comprehensive scientific-reference atlases of Transcaucasia. The atlas systematically summarizes the latest achievements in the study of Georgia's natural conditions, resources, and socio-economic development, comprising six sections and over 225 maps, and for the first time includes independent sections on natural productive resources, as well as new thematic maps such as paleogeography, seismicity, karst, and television coverage. The review highlights methodological innovations, including the use of volumetric symbols for urban population and legend designs based on natural factors like vertical zonality, climate, and relief. It also notes the atlas's coordination with the atlases of Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, the author criticizes certain shortcomings: some map contents do not match their titles, taxonomic units in legends are inconsistent, quantitative indicators are often lacking, and color choices are occasionally poor. Despite these flaws, the atlas is deemed a significant achievement of Soviet cartography.

Н. В. Думитрашко; А. А. Минц

This article provides a comprehensive review of the Atlas of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, published in 1964. Compiled by the Vakhushti Institute of Geography of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, the atlas contains over 220 maps, covering physical geography (about 130 maps), economic geography (about 80 maps), and historical themes (12 maps). The review notes that its physical geography sections, particularly geological-geomorphological and climatic map groups, are the most detailed; the economic geography sections include thematic maps on population, industry, agriculture, and transport. While acknowledging the atlas's scientific depth, diversity of cartographic methods, and quality of printing, the article also identifies several shortcomings, such as improper use of certain geographical names, inconsistencies between some maps, and a lack of clear indication for dry subtropical zones. Overall, the atlas is regarded as a major achievement of Georgian science and a significant contribution to Soviet geography and cartography.

Jörg Stadelbauer

This article reviews two geographical publications. The first review assesses the National Atlas of Georgia (2018 English edition), a collaborative effort between Georgian and German scholars that comprehensively revises the 2012 Georgian-language edition with new maps and thematic additions. The atlas systematically presents Georgia's physical geography (geology, geomorphology, climate, hydrology, soils, vegetation) and human geography (population, religion, agriculture, tourism, historical development), while carefully addressing the politically sensitive status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The review notes limitations in socio-economic map coverage and data timeliness but praises the atlas as an impressive cartographic achievement. The second review examines the Routledge Handbook of Asian Borderlands (2018), which contains 35 contributions across seven sections, exploring paradigm shifts in borderland studies through themes such as violence, gender, mobility, and livelihoods. The handbook moves beyond traditional legal and political frameworks to conceptualize borders as dynamic social spaces, reflecting contemporary academic trends. The review considers it a valuable contribution to border studies.