The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Feudal estate of Kaytaga at the XVIII beginning of the 19th century



i. A. Magomedov

FEUDAL ESTATE of KAYTAGA V of XVIII - the BEGINNING of the 19th CENTURY

Work is presented by department of history of Dagestan of the Dagestan state university.

The research supervisor - the doctor of historical sciences, professor A.I. Omarov

Article is devoted to a research of feudal estate Kaytaga - one of considerable and influential public entities of Dagestan in XVIII - the beginning of the 19th century. The structure of feudal estate, feature of feudal hierarchy, extent of influence on the happening socio-political processes in the principality is shown.

I. Magomedov

KAITAG FEUDAL ESTATE IN THE 18th - EARLY 19th CENTURIES

The article is dedicated to the studies of the Kaitag feudal estate - one of the significant and powerful state formations in Daghestan in the 18th - early 19th centuries.

The author shows the structure and peculiarities of the feudal estate and the degree of the influence on the social and political processes in the principality.

According to sources, the Kaitag uts-miystvo was one of the most significant across the territory and influence of feudal possession in Dagestan which began in the seaside lowland, covered foothill and mountain Dagestan. In the north it bordered on Tarkovsky a shamkhalstvo, in the south - on Derbent and Tabasaran, in the West - with the Kazikumukhsky khanate and Akusha-Dargo, in the east was washed by the Caspian Sea. In the studied time it represented large, on scales of Dagestan, feudal possession in which various ethnic groups (Kaitags, Kumyks, terekemeyets, Dargins, Mountain Jews) lived. The purpose of this article is disclosure of social structure of feudal estate of this state formation of Dagestan in XVIII - the beginning of the 19th century

The social structure of the Kaitag uts-miystvo in XVIII - the beginning of the 19th century was characterized by presence of eight groups of the population. Belonged to the category of a ruling class of the Kaitag society: 1) utsmiya, 2) bek, 3) chanka-bek, 4) chanka, 5) shikh or siedis. The rest of the population was made by the peasantry subdivided, in turn, on uzdeny (free community members), rait (serfs) and kul (slaves).

In the studied time among feudal possessors of Dagestan on the force, weight, the authority after shamkhaly appeared utsmiya. And. - G. Gerber wrote: "After a shamkhal always the most notable the local people had Utsmy and nowadays even in great respect" [5, page 74].

About origin an utsmiya as head and governor Kaytaga the following legend remained. When Abu-Muslim, one of the Arab conquerors, subdued Dagestan, appointed in each of separate parts it the governors. Among the governors delivered to them in Kaytag one of descendants Amir-Gamza, the uncle Prorok (Muhammad), by the name of Amir-Chopan was appointed. Subsequently one of descendants Amir-Chopana - Rustem khan began to be called utsmiy. This of utsmiya wrote adats for the decision of lawsuits [16, l. 145].

By words I. - G. Gerber, actually in Kaytage from an utsmiya Sultanmouth-Utyamishsky, Kubya-sha, Akusha and several taulints depended "with some contracts" [5, page 83]. It should be noted that a statement And. - G. Gerber about Akush's dependence from an utsmiya not absolutely is true. Akusha was not a part of possession an utsmiya, it was the capital of strong federation of the unions of rural communities of Dargins of Akusha-Dargo which on the force and influence on the happening political processes of Dagestan did not concede to large feudal possession. The power an utsmiya was more limited, than the governor has shamkhalstvo, and on places he actually had no power. And besides, not on all parts of an utsmiystvo were "from an utsmiya... taxes are imposed" [17, page 133]. As confirmation to that serve words an utsmiya Ahmed khan who in 1718 wrote the nobleman Lopukhin (who needed to pass through the territory Kaytaga), "that at it the road is not locked who wants, that goes and what to take on the hands and to see in dangerous places to Tar-kov, that, I cannot make because me. karakaytak which nobody can appease will burn out" [11, page 12]. Nearly eighty years later new utsmiya also spoke, "that the people of its possession are free. Will obey it a little, and he is not able to force it to satisfaction offended" [1, page 617].

Kaitag utsmiya, except income from hereditary manors, gained also other income belonging to the one who carried this rank.

Income Kaitag an utsmiya consisted of income from its land possession, from rayat and additional sources. And utsmiya received natural taxes both from the rayatsky settlements of Terekeme, and from residents of Nizhny Novgorod Kaytaga. From terekemeysky rait utsmiya received first of all a grain tax (chikhish). Kaitag utsmiya leased and received a pasturable rent not only from ku-thanes, but also from the arable lands which were in use of peasants.

R.M. Magomedov noted, "what this type of land property for an utsmiya and it

bek was more favorable. Pastures were an economic basis not only for Kaytaga, but also for the next communities which were not entering an utsmiystvo. By means of pastures of utsmiya expected to attach, probably, to the possession numerous next rural societies. As for bread for needs of an uts-miystvo, it was much delivered by rayata to Terkema" [12, page 213, 214]. As well as throughout Dagestan, in the Kaitag utsmiystvo the grocery rent was the main form of a feudal rent. Settlements Cara-Kaytaga which submitted an utsmiya, paid 6 darkh! a hole (barkha) from each couple of the working cattle a year, one bullock cart of hay and one bullock cart of the crushed straw (luxury) [2, page 4].

And. - G. Gerber wrote that in Kaytage "there are a lot of good and great villages" and "income from them takes usmy from which he the foremen and noblemen favors and presents" [5, page 83]. It demonstrates to a large income an utsmiya.

D.I. Tikhonov specified that he of utsmiya at the end of the 18th century had income of 60,000 rubles [17, page 135]. Except the transferred income of utsmiya gained also other income:

1) in duty from the trade caravans passing through Kaytag;
2) income from five yatag and the pasturable mountain Andara-chi;
3) income from oil wells on Neut-Kutana;
4) from certain utsmiyevy salt lakes;
5) from inhabitants of the magal Kaba-Darga - wheat;
6) from inhabitants of magals of Itsari and Shari - rams, honey, oil and sigach (rough canvas);
7) income from a mill in villages. Bashla and from nut trees near this settlement;
8) penalties for crimes of inhabitants of Bashla [6, l. 4].

The rank an utsmiya in Kaytage devolved to the senior in a sort, as well as in a sham-halstvo Tarkovsky. But every time such hereditary transition was followed in a special way declarations an utsmiya at a meeting of representatives uzdensky (i.e. free) societies which gathered for Bashli's jamia. Here in utsmiye-

a vy sort also put a cap which was stored in a tukhuma of the Arab origin in the magal Irchamul on the senior then the successor was considered as the elected to a rank an utsmiya. On the same descent along with utsmiy also the one who had to inherit its power on death an utsmiya was elected. The successor was called Ghat-tyn. The team from three hundred soldiers was at its disposal [12, page 222].

P. Zubov wrote that "utsmy Karakaydakh-sky operates also autocratically", as well as Tarkovsky shamkhat [8, page 138].

Contrary to the specified author R.M. Magomedov noted limitation of the power an utsmiya of Kaytaga in general in Utsumi-Dargo. He wrote: "Utsmy had no right to dispose of public lands, spontaneously to create court, to break adats, to wage war and to announce the world when this business concerned everything Kaytaga, without the approval of jamias corresponding on that" [12, page 247].

According to the conclusion "Notes about a soslovnopozemelny system in Kaytage", "value and the power the utsmiya did not resemble value and the power of the former Transcaucasian khans. Its relations to three main classes there was a miscellaneous: in the relation to subject personally to rayata he was sovereign mister, but also each bek in the relation to subject was same; in the relation to baddies it was rather senior member in family, than the master whom other members address for council, but which can be accepted or rejected on the blagousmotreniye; in the relation to uzdenyam and partly to baddies it was no more as the leader in wartime of all of Kaytaga in external relations" [18, page 184].

For fixing of the power of an utsmiya used custom of an atalychestvo, widespread in the Caucasus, - temporary adoption. Utsmiya used old customs and put all society in position of an atalyk - the newborn firstborn an utsmiya was brought to the most influential jamias (communities) where all female mothers in turn fed him. It proceeded until the child was not weaned. We do not meet it neither at Laks, nor at Avars.

If the two first sign of election the utsmiya in Kaytage of a skhodstvovala with the Kumyk customs, then was not succeeded to find to us at Kumyks something reminding the ceremony described above with the newborn child at all. All this allows us to draw a conclusion that in Kaytage in one his part the feudal relations received approvals, and in another the prefeudal relations with all that it implies from this orders and customs still dominated.

R.M. Magomedov wrote that here it is about use utsmiy custom of an ata-lychestvo - "utsmiya put all society in position of an atalyk and by that ensured also to the successor not only humility, but also full support from all society" [12, page 223].

Utsmy resolved all foreign policy issues and itself headed a militia. In a source it is said that in "the relation to uzdenyam and partly to baddies of utsmiya was no more as the leader in wartime and to representatives of all of Kaytaga in the external relations" [6, l. 3]. In a note about a class and land system in Kaytage it is stipulated that in case of war on the first appeal an utsmiya just as bek with subject, uzdena were obliged to take up arms. But it became only in case the issue of war was resolved on the general people's assembly of uzdensky jamias [7, page 183].

According to R.M. Magomedov, in all this we have to see not helplessness an utsmiya, not his weak will or indulgences in application of the power over "people", and an originality of a political system of Kaytaga which was expressed that a class of feudal lords, politically yet not strengthened, could not but reckon with such impressive force as the uzdensky jamias united in magals [12, page 224].

For feudal possessors in Kaytage during the studied period on the value, economic and to a social legal status in social hierarchy there were bek (at Kumyks - Biya).

Among bek there were various groups: actually bek, chanka-bek and chanka.

Becky is descendants of feudal possessors, members of ruling surnames, their younger line which, having received from feudal governors in hereditary possession and on a nazr (gift) the inhabited and not inhabited lands, also became large landowners that was characteristic of all feudal possession of Dagestan.

It is hereditary bek. But, except them, there were also "the granted bek", i.e. bek which were entitled bek in an award for military and other merits. In this regard M.M. Kowalewski's statement that genesis of beksky estate was the same, "that sluzhily people, antru-stin, such is, combatants is not absolutely right. The temporary and personal difference caused by service since because of purely actual relations gains the nature of constant class privilege" [9, page 230]. This statement only concerning sluzhily bek which in Dagestan was a little and not in all feudal possession is right.

As sources and researchers, in Dagestan specify in that and the feature in comparison with Transcaucasia was that "all relatives of shamkhal, utsmi-ev, khans and other possessors, on condition of purity of the origin (i.e. under a condition if they were not descendants from marriages with women of the lowest origin - uzdenka, rayatam, etc.) made estate of the bek enjoying preferences to occupation of various administrative positions and including on management of any given areas of this possession or certain settlements and transferring personal and, in most cases, property rights to posterity, but again only on condition of purity of its origin. Thus, Beck's rank was hereditary, and replenishment of this estate from the outside by persons of the lowest origin practiced only in a type of exceptions" [the 10th page 282].

R.M. Magomedov compared the provision of bek approximately "to what was occupied in Russia during the early period, specific princes" [12, page 173].

The commission studying class and land questions in Kaytage in the middle of HEH of century as follows characterizes beksky estate: "Becky made the top class of the population in Kaytage; the Kaitag bek come from a sort an utsmiya. Becky the Kaitag own the inhabited lands which are in their hereditary possession. The land dependence poselyan is expressed in a duty to pay baddies a certain tax from various terrestrial works and performed by some natural duties. A manor of bek devolve. Only a part of personal estate" [6, l is allocated to female successors. 27].

Legal registration of estate of bek in Kaytage received in the 16th century at an uts-miya Ahmed khan. Becky owned the inhabited lands, kutana and yataga by inheritance and raised from subject to them rait also uzdeny various taxes and duties. Except the hereditary lands which were called myul-ka, bek had the lands bought by purchase at rait and death which got later rait, not left successors or running.

For good service of utsmiya awarded bek with the gifts consisting of things and the cattle. Beck got lands by inheritance, and utsmiya had no right to select them. There were cases when to an utsmiya passed to service of a beka, but they did not receive hereditary lands, and had in temporary use income from villages and several yards rait. At the end of XVIII and especially at the beginning of the 19th century of a beka, besides inheritance, began to receive manors by grant them by the Russian military leaders [12, page 224]. Among bek there were possessors very strong, possessing big property. It is known that one of uts-miyevy bek by the name of Ismail-bek owned 16 villages [15, l. 74]. However the majority of bek owned no more than two-three villages, and even one village and several a kutana-ma. In 1815 Badirkhan-bek owned the settlement of Ullu-Terkeme and two yataga.

In the data of the Derbent commandant colonel Rosenfeld relating to 1828 it is said: that "in times utsmiyev

bek on the people which are under their management had a great influence and did the same punishments as utsmiya, and took from them various penalties". However it should be noted that the concept "people" in the form it is given at Rosenfeld, mistakenly. Beck's right for collection of a rent and other types of works could extend in this case not to all people, only on rait. Besides and in the relation rait bek had no right to expel the rayat from the settlement voluntarily, but he could oppress it to what is rait had to flee the settlement.

Beck was limited not only in the relation rait, but also in many other what Beck's wellbeing was connected with. So, Kaitag bek could not oppress any settlement and in case he tries to follow this way, "other settlements have to stand up for it and stop Beck" [14, page 87] and if bek began to persist, then to expel it.

Also such moment which characterizes relationship of Beck and jamia deserves attention. In the resolution an utsmiya Rustem khan it is written down: "Nobody has to bequeath the manor in favor of Beck or a chanka. Who will make such will, that together with family will be expelled from the settlement. And who will ask and advise that to leave such testator, the house to destroy that" [14, page 88]. This very strict instruction what can seldom be met at other people. It is entirely directed against Beck, against growth of land property and, therefore, against strengthening of the political power of Beck. The explanation of this phenomenon is put first of all in force of a tukhum and jamia. Utsmy at all the desire could not bypass them, he was also very closely connected with jamia. Rustem khan recorded in the resolution of the end of the 17th century of a frame in which the growing feudal class at the obshchestvennoekonomichesky system existing in Kaytage was put. Besides, it is possible to assume that utsmiya this severe act to a certain extent constrained extremely rapid growth of beksky lands and fenced off itself from the amplifying bek.

On feudal custom, bek were vassals of the khan. But this submission had very conditional character. As it is noted in "A note about a class and land system in Kaytage", utsmiya in the relation to baddies there was rather senior member in family, than the master whom other members for council, but who can accept or reject on the blagousmotreniye" [6, l address. 5].

The similar relations were not only concerning Kaitag an utsmiya, but also all other feudal possession of Dagestan. In internal affairs of Beck the power of the khan consisted in the right to admonish or persuade Beck "to abandon excessive claims or he could not change the decision, order it" [6, l. 6]. In foreign policy the dependence of bek from an utsmiya was other. In "A note about a class and land system in Kai-tage" it is told: "The orders an utsmiya relating before execution of a compulsory military service were obliged to execute Becky implicitly; were on its service during the war on a horse or pedestrian together with subject". In this respect in the resolution of the Rus-tem-hana it is told: "Beck should not undertake a campaign, previously without having consulted to reasonable. Otherwise to take from it a penalty in favor of society" [14, page 87]. Reasonable were meant as communal administration, persons with whom bek was obliged to discuss the plan before undertaking a campaign. Only after mutual consent was reached, the campaign was considered as reasonable, deserving participation of all society.

Utsmy did not give the chance to act willfully to baddies. They, being vassals an utsmiya, could not conduct separatist policy. "Utsmiya were ruthless to the baddies seeking to break away from them and to become independent, and all measures tried to keep them in vassal dependence. The power an utsmiya in rayatsky Kaytage and his influence on other Kaytag were strong only until bek obeyed an utsmiya" [12, page 248].

But there was also other reason of durability of the power an utsmiya - it is support carried out

to them politicians uzdensky magals. They though were independent, had the internal management, did not pay a tax utsmiya, in view of their entry into uniform political structure - Utsumi-Dargo, were in certain economic dependence (received bread in Terekem, grazed the herds in winter time on a flat part of an utsmiyst-v where there were winter pastures - kutana), exposed the military forces for an utsmiya. It is known that at an utsmiya, as well as other Dagestan possessors, had no constant army. And utsmiya in necessary cases addressed mountain societies which in full equipment were to it. In this regard the message of the participant of the Persian campaign V. Zubov - D.I. Tikhonova is of great interest. In 1796 he wrote: "Possession all inhabitants in case of need for army on a zashchishcheniye of the borders give Utsmiya from each yard on one person. If it is necessary to make an utsmiya their army the grant to other owner, in that case asks them consent and with a patch to them for that money, and violence to that the party to war will not force them" [17. page 134]. There are data that utsmiya if necessary could expose army which number reached 12,500 people [4, page 29].

During the subsequent time there were changes: there was a decomposition of jamia, promotion on the first place of bek, growth of their allotment and strengthening of feudal dependence of free community members. However this process in Kaytage in the 18th century was not finished and continued during the subsequent periods.

Also the chanka-bek which are given rise from a gumma i.e. mothers, not an equal bika belonged to estate of the Kaitag feudal lords. The difference between chanka-beka and baddies of equal marriage consisted in the bigger or smaller right for fatherly inheritance. Chanka-bekam the smaller share in comparison with baddies was taken away [13, page 140, 141]. In all the rest they did not differ from other bek at all. In the manors the chanka-bek had the same rights to the subject population, as well as all

other bek. Their manor devolved on the same bases, as well as at bek.

Special group of the Kaitag feudal lords were made just by chanka, i.e. children from mismatches an utsmiya and bek. Chanka-beki, as a rule, had mother from a noble family, but not possessory, and children from a karavashka, the rayat and uzdenya were considered as chanka. But not only it divided them. Unlike chanka-bek a tub-ki did not own the inhabited lands, had no rait, used the site from public land fund at settlements in which they lived, and they lived mainly in uzdensky settlements [3, page 32].

At last, as the lowest group it is necessary to rank as category of the Kaitag feudal lords shikh or siedis. They lived in different rural areas, using a number of privileges and privileges. The Arab conquerors were a kernel from which this group grew. When the Moslem doctrine extended, they used big weight among the population and had noticeable impact on governors. In the subsequent when temporal power amplified, their functions were reduced to execution of religious practices, but behind them some privileges were kept. By the situation of a shikha uzdenyam were intermediate between feudal lords and free [12, page 227].

Thus, from the given material it is visible that the power an utsmiya as main

the feudal lord - the governor it was not identical in various parts of Kaytaga. It really was strong in the Lower Kaytage - a rayat-sky part while in the Top Kaytage - an uzdensky part, i.e. the unions of rural communities of Dargins in a mountain part of Utsumi-Dargo, uts-my had no power. There was the local, allied and communal management, and utsmiya did not interfere with their internal affairs though these societies were a part of the Kaitag utsmiystvo. And in this plan it is necessary to agree with V.G. Gadzhiye-vy who wrote: "Appears from told that in one part of possession of utsmiya acted as the autocrat, in another - as the leader to whom executive power was entrusted in some way and as a reward for it some material benefits were provided" [4, page 30].

Becky, following for utsmiy in class hierarchy of Kaytaga, represented also significant force capable to have noticeable impact on the taking place internal political events. In the destinies they were absolute masters and rulers of the destiny of people. On an utsmiya they looked rather as at the senior family member, than at the master. Nevertheless bek were strongly limited in many respects, without giving them the chance to amplify excessively and in every possible way stopping their separatist aspirations.

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. The acts collected by the Caucasian arkheografichesky commission (AKAK). Tiflis, 1873. T. V. 978 pages
2. B.G. Aliyev. Field material of 1979//Hand-written fund of Institute of history, archeology and ethnography of the Dagestan scientific center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Russian Federation IIAE DNC RAS). T. 1. Op. 1. 562. 92 pages
3. B.M. Alimova. Kaitags. XIX - the beginnings of the 20th century. Historical and ethnographic research. Makhachkala: Floodlight, 1998. 228 pages
4. V.G. Gadzhiyev. A role of Russia in the history of Dagestan. M.: Science, 1965. 391 pages
5. I. Gerber - G. The description of the countries and the people along the west bank of the Caspian Sea. 1728//History, geography and ethnography of Dagestan XVSh-XIX of centuries: Archive. materials / under the editorship of M.O. Kosve-na and X. - M. Hashayeva. M.: Publishing house vost. liters, 1958. 371 pages (further - IGED).
6. Public institution "Central State Archive of the Republic of Dagestan". T. 90. Op. 2. 24. 159 l. (further - GU "CGA RD").
7. A note about a class and land system in Kaytage//the Feudal relations in Dagestan. XIX - the beginning of the 20th century. Archive. materials / sost., predisl. and primech. X. - M. Hashayeva. M.: Science, 1969. 369 pages
8. P. Zubov. Kartina of the Caucasian edge belonging to Russia, and adjacent to it lands; in the historical, statistical, ethnographic, financial and trade relations. SPb.: Type. K. Vintera, 1835. Part 1. 268 pages
9. M.M. Kowalewski. The law and custom in the Caucasus. M, 1890. T. 1. 324 pages
10. V. Linden. A short historical essay of a former social and political and land system of the nationalities inhabiting Muslim districts of the Caucasian region//Caucasian Calendar (CC) for 1917. Tiflis, 1916. 413 pages
11. A.I. Lopukhin. The magazine of a travel through Dagestan. 1718//IGED.
12. R.M. Magomedov. A socioeconomic and political system of Dagestan in XVIII - the beginning of the 19th century. Makhachkala, 1957. 408 pages
13. G.G. Osmanov. About a social system of Dagestan at the end of XVIII - the beginning of the 19th century//Scientific notes of Institute of history, language and literature (OUSE IIYaL). Makhachkala, 1960. T. VII. 167 pages
14. Kaytakhsky's resolution Rustem khan Utsmiya//Collection of information about the Caucasian mountaineers (SSKG). Tiflis, 1868. Issue 1. 286 pages
15. RGADA. T. "Intercourses of Russia with Persia". 1722. 24.
16. Hand-written fund of Institute of IAE DNC RAS. T. 1. 155. 453 l.
17. D.I. Tikhonov. Description of Northern Dagestan. 1796//IGED.
18. The feudal relations in Dagestan. HGH - the beginning of the 20th century. Archive. materials / sost., predisl. and primech. X. - M. Hashayeva. M, 1969. 369 pages

REFERENCES

1. Akty sobrannye kavkazskoy arkheograficheskoy komissiyey (AKAK). Tiflis, 1873. T. V. 978 s.
2. Aliyev B. G. Polevoy material 1979 g.//Rukopisny fond Instituta istorii, arkheologii i etnografii Dagestanskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk (RF IIAE DNTs RAN). F. 1. Op. 1. D. 562. 92 s.
3. Alimova B. M. Kaytagi. XIX - nachala XX v. Istoriko-etnograficheskoye issledovaniye. Makhachkala: Yupiter, 1998. 228 s.
4. Gadzhiyev V. G. Rol& Rossii v istorii Dagestana. M.: Nauka, 1965. 391 s.
5. Gerber of I. - G. Opisaniye stran i narodov vdol& zapadnogo berega Kaspiyskogo morya. 1728 g.//Is-toriya, geografiya i etnografiya Dagestana XVIII-XIX vv.: Arkhiv. materialy/pod red. M. O. Kosvena i Kh. - M. Khashayeva. M.: Izd-vo vost. lit-ry, 1958. 371 s. (daleye - IGED).
6. Gosudarstvennoye uchrezhdeniye "Tsentral&ny Gosudarstvenny Arkhiv Respubliki Dagestan". F. 90. Op. 2. D. 24. 159 l. (daleye - GU "TsGA RD").
7. Zapiska o soslovno-pozemel&nom stroye v Kaytage//Feodal&nye otnosheniya v Dagestane. XIX - nachale XX v. Arkhiv. materialy/sost., predisl. i primech. Kh. - M. Khashayeva. M.: Nauka, 1969. 369 s.
8. Zubov P. Kartina Kavkazskogo kraya, prinadlezhashchego Rossii, i sopredel&nykh onomu zemel&; v istoricheskom, statisticheskom, etnograficheskom, finansovom i torgovom otnosheniyakh. SPb.: Tip. K. Vintera, 1835. Ch. 1. 268 s.
9. Kovalevsky M. M. Zakon i obychay na Kavkaze. M., 1890. T. 1. 324 s.
10. Linden V. Kratkiy istoricheskiy ocherk bylogo obshchestvenno-politicheskogo i pozemel&nogo stroya narodnostey, naselyayushchikh musul&manskiye rayony Kavkazskogo kraya//Kavkazskiy Kalen-dar& (KK) na 1917. Tiflis, 1916. 413 s.
11. Lopukhin A. I. Zhurnal puteshestviya cherez Dagestan. 1718 g.//IGED.
12. Magomedov R. M. Obshchestvenno-ekonomicheskiy i politicheskiy stroy Dagestana v XVIII - nachale XIX veka. Makhachkala, 1957. 408 s.
13. Osmanov G. G. O sotsial&nom stroye Dagestana v kontse XVIII - nachale XIX v.//Uchenye zapiski Instituta istorii, yazyka i literatury (UZ IIYaL). Makhachkala, 1960. T. VII. 167 s.
14. Postanovleniye Kaytakhskogo Utsmiya Rustem-khana//Sbornik svedeniy o kavkazskikh gort-sakh (SSKG). Tiflis, 1868. Vyp. 1. 286 s.
15. RGADA. F. "Snosheniya Rossii s Persiyey". 1722. D. 24.
16. Rukopisny fond Instituta IAE DNTs RAN. F. 1. D. 155. 453 l.
17. Tikhonov D. I. Opisaniye Severnogo Dagestana. 179b g.//IGED.
18. Feodal&nye otnosheniya v Dagestane. XIX - nachale XX v. Arkhiv. materialy/sost., predisl. i primech. Kh. - M. Khashayeva. M., 19b9. Zb9 s.
Michele Williams
Other scientific works: