The Akhtynsky district is located in the southernmost part of Russia. This is a place with a rich history and magnificent nature. The development of the region has its own characteristics. Despite its high-altitude location, the area turned out to be very attractive for people to live and was almost never completely deserted.

Early history

At the dawn of its history, the territory was part of the early feudal state of Lakz, which owned the lands of modern southern Dagestan and part of Azerbaijan. History has preserved only fragmentary information about this public education. Lakz can be called the ethnic kingdom of the Lezgins. They are the ones who still mostly inhabit the Akhtynsky district.

Along the middle Samur, a union of rural communities of Akhtypara was formed. “Akhty” means “six” translated from the Turkic dialect, “para” means part, piece. The union included 6 communities, hence the name.

One might assume that the union of communities is a step back, but in fact such leadership had a beneficial effect on the development of the Akhtynsky district. The Union successfully crushed smaller territories and villages. Communities successfully united to jointly defend the territory from invaders.

As part of Russia

Together with the entire territory of Dagestan, Akhtynsky district became part of Russian Federation. During the same period of time, many residents moved from high mountain settlements. Previously, most of the population lived in villages located in hard-to-reach places. The highlands successfully hid from enemies. Without knowing the exact location, it is difficult to find a remote village in the mountains.

With the beginning of the industrialization of the region, many villagers go to the cities to earn money. Sometimes entire settlements moved to the foot of the mountains, completely abandoning their homes. Often the new place retained the same name. As a result of this process, the ghost villages of the Akhtyn region appeared.

Ghost villages

The appearance of ghost villages has become characteristic feature for everything The resettlement did not always take place systematically and voluntarily. The party leadership wrongfully believed that it was impossible to develop normally in closed conditions, so activists forced residents to relocate.

Thus, many productive livestock farms were destroyed. People were deprived of their usual way of life. In the new conditions there were not always suitable meadows for grazing, so many had a hard time.

Villages in the mountains remained practically lifeless. Some, despite everything, remained in their home, not wanting to move, but there were only a few of them. The villages remained empty and are now being mercilessly destroyed by natural forces. These places need careful exploration while there is still something to explore.

In the Akhtynsky district there is now a program for the return resettlement of people. There is little work in the city, and the revival of villages with natural or farming will serve as a good impetus for the development of the region.

Akhtyn Fortress

The history of the Akhtynsky district is rich in events. The region became the southernmost point in Russia, and the southernmost fortress was built here. Erected in 1839, it became the first defensive line in the south. The fortress has the shape of a pentagon; previously it was surrounded by a moat and additional stone walls more than 4 meters high and more than 1 meter wide.

The location turned out to be not very good. The hilly terrain made it difficult to see and fire at the enemy from cannons. The main battle was fought at the close approaches. In the 1848 war with Imam Shamil, the fortress was stormed many times. Enemy troops captured almost the entire region, but the defensive walls still held out, finding themselves completely surrounded.

Today the Akhtyn fortress is recognized as a historical and cultural monument. Despite this, it is closed to visitors. The main buildings are in disrepair, and there is no talk of restoration yet. The monument is under threat of destruction and final loss to history.

Nature

Akhtynsky district has beautiful nature and climate. Almost the entire area is covered with meadows, with only occasional copses found. Many mountain streams and rivulets create a beautiful picture.

Not far from the village of Kurukal there is a unique thermal hydrogen sulfide spring. Mountain landscape gives many crystal clear waterfalls, the most famous of them is Zrychski. The Midjakh thousand-year-old oak evokes admiration and delight. Numerous river valleys help you find harmony with the world and with yourself.

Akhtynsky district is the southernmost territory of Russia. The originality of Lezgin culture has been partially preserved here, along with modern trends. The mild climate and beautiful scenery make this a wonderful place to relax, as clearly demonstrated by photos of the Akhtynsky district. The region has its own problems, including numerous abandoned villages, but all this can be overcome.

Akhtynsky district is located in the south of Dagestan, and borders Azerbaijan. The entire territory of the Akhtynsky district, with the exception of a small section of the Samur River floodplain in the east, is at an altitude of 1000 meters above sea level and above, most of it is highlands with altitudes from 2 to 4 km. Mount Shalbuzdag (4142 m) is the highest point of the region. The villages of the Samur Valley, protected by mountains, are characterized by moderately hot summers and warm winter, and a large number of sunny days. The balneological resort area includes the village of Akhty and its surroundings. The Akhtynsky district is treeless, only on the right bank of the Samur in the western part of the district and in the middle reaches of the Akhtychay River there are separate areas covered with forest. A large number of streams flow from the slopes of the mountains and flow into the Samur and its main tributary, the Akhtychay. In the specially protected areas located in the Akhtynsky district there are the following natural monuments: Hot hydrogen sulfide thermal springs (village Kurukal), Khryugsky forest complex, Zrykhsky waterfall, Midzhakhsky thousand-year-old oak, Valley of the Mugulat-dere river with access to Shalbuz-Dag, Mount “Kelez Khev” "(village Akhty).

Population, history, culture

The share of Lezgins in the population of the region is 93%, 5% are Rutuls, Russians - 1.6%. The Akhtyn district has a rich historical and cultural heritage, a significant part of which is associated with Akhtami - one of the oldest Lezgin settlements. The following architectural monuments are located in Akhty: Akhtyn Fortress (19th century), Akhtyn Arch Bridge, Akhtyn Bridge (1915), Akhtyn Museum of Local Lore, Juma Mosque (18th century).

VILLAGE OF AKHTY
The village of Akhty is located in the picturesque valley of the Samur River, at the confluence of the Akhtychay River. Akhty is one of the tourist centers of Dagestan. In these places, tourists are usually attracted by the healing mineral springs. However, in addition to this, tourists willingly walk along the streets of the village, photographing local attractions that Akhty abounds in. There are many detailed author’s stories with photographic materials about visiting Akhta on the Internet. Akhty is the birthplace of Dagestan theatrical art; it was here that the first Lezgin Drama Theater in Dagestan was opened in 1906. On every last Saturday of June, a holiday dedicated to the hero of the Lezgin national epic Sharvili is held in the village of Akhty.

How to get there

The distance to the village of Akhty from the capital of Dagestan is 240 km. You can get from Makhachkala by bus, minibus, or by car. The road to the village is completely asphalted. The journey usually takes about 4 hours and runs through picturesque mountainous areas. Minibus taxis from Makhachkala to Akhty depart from the Southern bus station at intervals of 2 hours. The last flight is at 14:00, the first is at ~6 in the morning. In winter, as usual, transport runs less frequently. The fare is about 300(?) rubles. The village can also be reached from the city of Derbent - minibuses depart from the city bus station.

More you might like

Qiyamat-kapi Gate (Doomsday Gate) Qiyamat-kapi - “Doomsday Gate” or “Gate of Resurrection” (Arabic Bab al-Kiyassha, Turkic Qiyamat-kapi, Persian Dar-i Qiyamat) - a previously existing Muslim place of worship in Derbent, located near one of the towers of the northern city wall (VI century) from the outside, outside the medieval shakhristan. It arose in the 9th-10th centuries on the site of a well-guarded narrow passage with an arched vault in the defensive wall that functioned here in the late Sasanian and early Arab periods. As established by archaeological excavations, at the indicated time the passage was blocked from the side of the city and thus turned into a room (4.5 square meters), and the adjacent area (about forty square meters) at the junction of the tower and the wall was fenced with stone pillars with transverse wooden beams of a fence and with an entrance decorated with two carved pillars. Back in the late 1920s - early 1930s, there was a revered, holy place here, which bore the name Azerb. Burunj pir ("Corner pir"). In subsequent times, this cult monument and its name were forgotten. In 2002-2004, archaeological excavations were carried out at this site.

On February 25, the first stage of the KVN school league took place in the gymnasium of the village of Belidzhi, organized by the Regional Educational Institution of the Derbent District and the Department of Youth Affairs and Tourism. The event was attended by the head of the department of youth affairs and tourism Rafil Gadzhiakhmedov, specialist of the department of youth affairs and tourism Kemran Isaev, chief specialist of the department of culture, national politics and religion Maxim Kichibekov, director of the public school of the village of Belidzhi Kakhriman Ibragimov, etc. In the first stage, 4 district teams competed: “Corporation of Laughter” (gymnasium of the village of Belidzhi), “Tired of School” (secondary school No. 1 of the village of Belidzhi), “Sun” (secondary school No. 2 of the village of Belidzhi) and “Another Life” (secondary school of the village of Nyugdi ). “KVN participants perform an important social task, they show how bright, interesting, smart, energetic the youth in our area are. One of the most important priorities any state must provide conditions for the development of youth. It is necessary to give the younger generation the opportunity to realize themselves, find their calling, and find a worthy place in society. The administration of the Derbent district has always supported, and will continue to support, talented, purposeful and energetic students, those who strive for education, take initiative in study, creativity, sports and other areas of life. The success of young people is the key to tomorrow’s prosperity of our region and the republic,” noted Rafil Gadzhiakhmedov. The Laughter Corporation team (gymnasium in the village of Belidzhi) reached the semi-finals. The next stage will take place soon.

Gate Kala-kapy Kala-kapy (XVI - XVIII centuries) translated from the Turkic language means “gate to the fortress”. Unlike other gates, this gate does not lead to the city, but directly to the entrance to the citadel. This is the first gate from the citadel on the southern city wall. On the northern facade, east of the gate, there is a stone staircase in the wall that leads to the combat room, located in the tower at a height of 3 meters from the ground. The wall above the gate and tower has a parapet with loopholes. On the eastern side of the gate there is a semicircular watchtower. Despite some similarities between the Kala-kapa gate and more ancient gates, they are of more recent origin. Experts refer to the construction of gates as XVIII century- to the period when Derbent became part of the Kuban Khanate and is attributed to Fet-Ali Khan.

Three Dagestan projects became winners of the second annual All-Russian urban planning competition, First Deputy Minister of Construction, Architecture and Housing and Communal Services of the Republic of Dagestan Magomed Osmanov told a RIA Dagestan correspondent.

According to him, the winner in the category “Best master plan of the city” was the project of the city of Izberbash.

“In the competition for the application of land use and planning rules, the Burdekinsky village council of the Sergokalinsky district was recognized as the best. And in the nomination “Best Implemented Object Preservation Project” cultural heritage“The restoration and restoration project of the Naryn-Kala Citadel in the city of Derbent was unanimously recognized,” the agency’s interlocutor said.

The awards to the winners of the competition were presented by the Minister of Construction of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Men. As the head of the Russian Ministry of Construction noted, the competition is gaining popularity - much more participants have been announced this year.

A total of 194 applications were submitted to the competition, of which 57 made it to the finals. In 2016, the organizing committee of the competition established a new nomination, “The best implemented project for the development of a built-up area,” for which 18 projects competed. Among the competition participants are authorities, representatives of business structures - developers, technical customers.

Competitive applications were evaluated by an expert jury, which included practitioners, representatives of leading scientific organizations in our country, heads of national associations and associations of employers in the construction industry.

Let us recall that the annual urban planning competition was announced by the Russian Ministry of Construction on December 10, 2014. Its main goal is to determine the best practices for implementing projects in the field of urban planning and their implementation in other regions of the country.

SCOU " Comprehensive school- boarding school No. 6 in Derbent was officially opened on October 2, 1959. It was located in a two-story building of the current school No. 16 at the address: st. Lenin No. 103. On the second floor there was a dormitory building for the 1st grade. In the first year, 150 children from distant areas were accepted into grades 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4 - 5 grades in total.

On April 2, 1962, the boarding school was transferred to a specially built complex consisting of several buildings: a three-story school building for 300 students, a three-story dormitory, a canteen, outbuildings (laundry, boiler room), and a residential building for teachers. The school received the status of a comprehensive eight-year boarding school No. 6. In the same year, children from Tabasaran, Akushinsky, Buinaksky and other regions of the Republic of Dagestan arrived at the boarding school. Teachers and educators had to deeply study the customs, culture, rituals and traditions of the peoples of Dagestan in order to find an approach to each child who is far from their home. The first director to take responsibility for these children was Pinkhas Ilyich Ilyaguev. In 1962 he was replaced by

Gereykhanov Abdulla Gereykhanovich, who is then replaced at the post by Uruzhbek Fatalievich Fataliev.

In 1964, Seyidov Mirkerim Sultanovich, a man of great soul, took up the baton and continued this watch until 1986. last days devoted his life to children and the cause of education, a war veteran, awarded the Order of the Red Star and Patriotic War first degree, many orders and medals. Teacher, warrior, citizen.

A tragic accident cut short the life of this wonderful man. In tribute to the memory of November 24, 1999, the school staff made a petition to the State Council of the Republic of Dagestan to name boarding school No. 6 named after Mirkerim Sultanovich Seidov. By decree State Council RD dated September 19, 2000 for No. 286 - “Comprehensive secondary boarding school No. 6” in Derbent was named after Mirkerim Sultanovich Seidov.

You taught us to be persistent in the fight,

He taught me to work without sparing effort.

Our teacher, bow to you

For everything he taught us.

Colleagues and graduates of boarding school No. 6 remember with special love and warmth their Russian teachers who worked from its very foundation. These are Vera Aleksandrovna Zolotareva, Maria Yakovlevna Seidova, Vera Stepanovna Vorotilina, Maria Grigorievna Suleymanova, Marina Fedorovna Cheprakovs and Yuri Mikhailovich, Valentina Pavlovna Ramazanova, Nina Mikhailovna Vorontsova, Valentina Nikolaevna Arsitova, Klavdiya Stepanovna Kozlova Kamyshanskaya Nellya Fedorovna, Tolpe Gina Olga Petrovna. Young people upon completion educational institutions they arrived in our republic by assignment and stayed here for many years, and many created their own families and forever linked their lives with Dagestan.

Appazheva Mina Rustamovna, Mamedova Shargiya Kadyrovna and the now working Babaeva Roza Mardakhaevna worked side by side with them.

Over 55 years, many teachers and educators have changed. If in the 1959-60 academic year there were 11 of them, then in 1966-67 academic years 30 teachers and educators. Now we are more than 70 people.

In 1963 there was the first graduation, in total during this period there were 45 graduations, that’s 1250 graduates.

In 1986, Seidov was replaced by M.S. Vitaly Pavlovich Zotov, now deputy head of the Main Directorate, came.

In 1986, boarding school No. 6 received the status of “Comprehensive secondary boarding school No. 6” in Derbent. From that moment on, a new era and a new wave of raising and educating children began.

Since 1992, the school has been operating under the leadership of N.S. Kazimova.

In June 2012, the leadership of boarding school No. 6 was taken over by Candidate of Historical Sciences, Honored Teacher of the Republic of Dagestan, Kuliev Vadim Dzhafarovich.

In 2011 boarding school receives a new status: State educational institution "General education" high school- boarding school No. 6 in Derbent, Republic of Dagestan. In 2013, in accordance with the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, the State Educational Institution “Comprehensive Secondary Boarding School No. 6” of Derbent received the status of the State Government Educational Institution “Secondary School No. 6” of Derbent, the Republic of Dagestan, which has its own Charter and governs in its own activities of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal laws of the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 273F3 “On Education in the Russian Federation”, decrees and orders of the Government of the Russian Federation, laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Republic of Dagestan, decisions (orders) of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Dagestan .

Akhtypara: pages of history

Z.Sh. Zakariaev

The Union of Rural Communities of Akhtypara is one of the famous and large community unions in Dagestan. This article will discuss the history of the formation, development of this union and its political structure.

After political decentralization and the collapse of the early feudal state of Lakz, which occupied the territory of modern Southern Dagestan (except for Tabasaran) and part of Northern Azerbaijan, several small estates or unions of rural communities were formed here. This also applies to the Samura Valley, which formed the core of medieval Lakza. Unions of rural communities are being created here, the largest of which has formed in the middle reaches of the Samur around one of the most ancient settlements in Dagestan - Akhty.

The early history of Akhta and neighboring settlements is set out in the famous Dagestan historical work “Akhty-name”, which has come down to us in two copies. It talks about the settlement of Persian soldiers sent by the Sasanian ruler of Iran, Khosrow Anushirvan, under the leadership of Shahbani, in the area of ​​​​the village of Akhty; about the attempts of the Khazar protege Samsam, the ruler of Mikrakh, to capture Akhty, subject to Darvishaya, a descendant of Shahbani; the alliance of Darvishaya with the warriors of Rutul, Jinikh and seeking help from Abu Muslim (Maslama), who settled in Derbent; siege of Mikrakh; the alliance of Darwishaya and the Arabs; the defeat and death of the Khazar leader Samsam; giving Abu Muslim's sister in marriage to Darwishaya and renaming the city of Shahbani to Akhty. These and other events described in Akhty-Nama date back to the 6th–9th centuries.

Rich epigraphic material has been recorded in the village of Akhty. The oldest inscriptions are made in Arabic “Kufi” script and date back to specialists of the 12th–13th centuries. Evidence in the 16th–17th centuries. the communities of the middle reaches of the Samur experienced an interesting process of transformation, the transformation of communal associations into a fief led by beks, followed by evolution into a communal form of government. The Malijah ar-Rutuli chronograph reports the burning of the village of Rutul in 948 AH (1541–1542) by the inhabitants of Akhty, “when their rais was Shah Hussein Beg, the hakim of al-Akhty and (also) Alkhas Mirza ad-Darbandi.” The same event is mentioned in the inscription on the binding of a book from the village of Akhty: “The date of the burning of the village of Rutul by the people of Akhty during the reign of Shah Hussein Beg, the ruler of Akhty and Alkhas Mirza, is 948 (1541–1542).

In the 60s XVI century In Akhty, the ruler Hussein Beg appears, then Ayub Beg succeeds him. Thus, in the 2nd half of the 16th century. there is a transformation of the communities of Middle Samur into bekdom. The origin of the Akhtyn beks is not entirely clear. It is possible that they were a branch of the descendants of Muhammad Bek, the son of the Kaitag feudal lord Ilcha-Akhmad, their power in Akhty was maintained by foreign support, as evidenced by the actions of the Derbent and Akhtyn forces against Rutul in the middle of the 16th century.

Oh you. View of the Juma Mosque.

Turkish invasion of the Caucasus in 1578–1579. did not have a noticeable impact on the territorial and political system that had developed in Southern Dagestan. At the same time, there is evidence that during the invasion of the Turkish army in the Caucasus, its commander-in-chief Lale Mustafa Pasha “gave” the “sanjak of Shabran” to Shamkhal Chupan, who met him, and the “sanjak of Akhty” to his brother Tugalav. It is unknown whether Tugalav really took over the management of Akhta. In any case, there is no information confirming this.

There are different opinions on the question of the time of formation of communal unions in the middle reaches of the Samur River. Some researchers believe that the Akhtyn Union was first formed, which later split into three independent unions: Akhtypara, Dokuzpara and Altypara. At the beginning of the 17th century. these rural community unions already existed. The formation of the Akhtyn Union, in our opinion, should be dated no later than the 14th century.

The village of Akhty. Old part

The overthrow of the beks in Akhty was not accompanied by the political degradation of this region - on the contrary, the union of rural communities of Akhtypara was an original and quite complex political structure, based on fairly developed feudal relations. There is no reason to consider the transformation of these lands into feudal ownership as an indicator of their transition to a higher level social development, as well as returning them to the traditional form political organization(conventionally sometimes called “defeodalization”) does not at all mean their socio-political degradation.

Some Adyghe tribes also experienced similar processes of defeodalization Northwestern Caucasus. Main features social structure of the Abadzekhs, Shapsugs and Natukhais in the 1st half of the 19th century. were due to what happened among them at the end of the 18th century. as a result of a fierce class struggle, a political coup that led to the weakening of the power of the feudal aristocracy and the loss of a number of class privileges.

The phenomenon of “peasantization” of small feudal landownership was noted by researchers in Moldova in the 16th–19th centuries. A similar phenomenon took place in Rutul, neighboring Akhtypara, whose bek house gradually turned into an ordinary free peasant tukhum with minor traditional privileges.

At the beginning of the 17th century. The power of the Safavid administration in the Samur Valley weakened significantly. The Shinaz chronograph and the Malij chronograph from Rutul report the burning of Akhta by the Derbent ruler Barkhudar Sultan in 1030 AH (1620–1621). This fact is confirmed by the inscription from the book in Akhty: “The date of the burning of the village of Akhty by Barkhudar Sultan the Raphysite is 1030.”

A few years later, Akhty was attacked again. An epigraphic inscription from the village tells about this: “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the merciful. This village was destroyed by Yusuf Khan. It remained [in this situation] for 8 years, then Ali was well restored by the son of Ustad Muhammad in 1039 AH of the Prophet...” 1039 AH corresponds to 1629–1630.

N.V. Khanykov considered the expedition of the Shirvan beglerbeg Yusuf Khan to Akhty as evidence of the entry of the Samur valley into Shirvan. However, such a conclusion does not follow from the inscription. It is more logical to consider Yusuf Khan’s campaign as an expedition against hostile neighbors and as evidence of the release of the lands of Middle Samur from the control of the Safavid authorities; moreover, there is no evidence of the restoration of the power of the beglerbeg here to any extent.

Unions of rural communities of the Samur Valley took an active part in the anti-Iranian movement of the 1st quarter of the 18th century. under the leadership of Hadji Daud and Surkhay Khan. A contemporary of these events, Russian Ambassador A.I. Lopukhin wrote in 1718: “In the immediate neighborhood of this city (Cuba. - 3.3.) Lezgin people who live in the mountains higher than Mount Shad Dag (Shahdag. - 3.3.) and they fight against the Shah and destroy the districts.” He is echoed by I.G. Gerber: “During the rebellion (uprising. - 3.3.) In Shirvania, they did a lot of help to Daud-bek and Surkhay, and they did not forget about themselves with the booty and got rich..."

I.G. Gerber, whose essay was written in 1728, left quite detailed information about Samur unions, including about Akhtypar: “... although every village has its own elder, however, the inhabitants are little obedient to them, for everyone is his own master... And although they are all thieves and robbers, however, in Cuba they do not carry out any attacks and thefts, so that through this they do not lose the will to get and exchange wheat there; They only use their trade as thieves further in the mountains and towards Georgia. They use fiery weapons, good sabers and many panzers, they are brave people and not afraid of fire.”

The author notes the political independence of the Samur unions: “Before the people are free, they do not pay incomes and taxes to anyone, but they will not pay them in the future and, hoping for a strong situation in their place, they are not afraid that anyone can bring them into citizenship and force them... They will never they did not stand under the Persian or under any other power, and although, first of all, the sultans of Derbent wanted to honor them as subjects of Persia and worked to force them to do so, and for this purpose a great team was often sent from Derbent to bring them under control by force, however, the Daghistanis always resisted and the expelled Derbents were sent back with bleeding heads.”

A.K. Bakikhanov in “Gulistan-i Iram” writes that when Nadir Shah approached Akhty during his first campaign in Dagestan, “the Lezgins destroyed the bridge over Samur and fortified themselves on the mountain in the old Shahbani fortress. Nadir ordered the construction of a new bridge and his order was carried out in one day. Having crossed the river with his entire army in the evening, he camped near the walls of the fortress. In the morning, he divided the army into two parts: he assigned one to the assault and sent the other to the place where the families of the defenders were hiding with all their property. At both points the Lezgins were defeated. Nadir personally pursued the fleeing enemy and devastated the gorges and mountains until the evening.”

According to G.E. Alkadari, “when Nadir Shah returned from Dagestan, the Cubans, Akhtyns and Kyurins united and attacked Huseyn Ali Khan in the Khudat fortress of the Kuba district, who, being khan by appointment of the Shah, lived there. They kept him in that fortress under siege until he was liberated by the Shah’s ruler of Derbent, Derbent society and Shamkhal Khasbulat who arrived in Khudat.”

The participation of the Akhtyns in the siege of Khudat clearly proves that they were not conquered by Nadir.

There is evidence of the participation of the Akhtyparins in the battle of the village of Dzhinykh in 1738 in Dzharo-Belokany, where the combined forces of the Dzharians and highlanders of Dagestan completely defeated the Persians. In this battle, Nadir's brother Ibrahim Khan and other Persian commanders were killed.

Extremely valuable information about the history, social system, and composition of the Akhtyparinsky Union is contained in the work of an anonymous author of the 19th century, known as “Description of the Samur District.” Apparently, the work belongs to a Russian official or military man and was written around 1867.

The essay states that “before the annexation to Russia, the populated area constituting the present Samur district, with the exception of Gorny Magal (Tsakhur villages of the present Rutul district of the Republic of Dagestan. - 3.3.) - was called the Samur province (Samur velayat), the main point of which was the village of Akhty.” IN early XIX V. Samur unions of rural communities united almost 60 villages (without the Tsakhur villages that were part of the Elisu Sultanate).

In the middle of the 18th century. the Akhtypara union consisted of 14 villages: Akhty, Khkem, Khulya, Gra, Gdynk, Kochakh, Midfakh, Smugul, Hal, Khnov, Borch, Gdym, Maza and Fiy. The union included villages of both the right and left banks of the Samur, as well as villages of the Akhtychaya gorge (Akhtseg-vatsI). In addition to the Lezgin villages, the union also included two large Rutul villages - Khnov and Borch. The specified composition of the Akhtyparinsky Union remained until 1776, when it expanded to 17 rural communities, after the inclusion of three villages on the left bank of the Samur in Akhtyparu: Gogaz, Usur and Kaka.

The Akhtypara Union bordered in the north with the Kyura Union of Rural Communities (since 1812 - with the Kyura Khanate), in the east - with the Union of Rural Communities of Dokuzpara and the village of Miskindzhi, in the west - with the Rutul Union of Rural Communities, in the south - with Sheki (Nukha) Khanate

The dominant position in Akhtypar was occupied by the jamaat of Akhty (Akhtsakh, Akhtseg). However, the degree of dependence of the villages on the Akhtyn jamaat varied. It is no coincidence that the author of the “Description of the Samur Okrug” identifies two groups of villages, two “sections” within the union: the so-called Akhtypara 1st and 2nd. Akhtypara 2 included 5 villages of the upper reaches of Akhtychay: Khnov, Borch, Gdym, Fiy and Maza. Geographically, these villages of the union are the most distant from Akhty and, as a result, enjoyed a greater degree of independence than other villages of Akhtypara. Khnov was considered the main village in this group, apparently due to its large population.

The remaining 12 villages of the union (Akhtypara 1st) were actually governed by Akhtyn “elders” - the heads of local tukhums. The number of aksakals (40) corresponded to the number of Akhtyn tukhums. The Akhtyn elders represented the local elite, a privileged layer of society. SSAgashirinova believes that the Akhtyn tukhums can be subsumed under the definition of “second-order patronymies”, which arose as a result of segmentation, fragmentation of overgrown large patronymics.

The advantages of the Akhtyns over the residents of other villages of the 1st Akhtypara were as follows:

1. Without Akhtyn “meslegetchi” (intermediaries), residents of all villages in the area could not sort out their mutual claims.

2. In case of war, at the first request of the Akhtyns, they were obliged to come to the rescue. In turn, each of the villages had the right to mandatory protection of the Akhtyns.

3. Akhtyn elders and effendi checked the performance of sunset in the villages. Regarding the sunset, the privilege of the Akhtyns was that they had the right to demand its implementation in favor of their poor and needy villagers. At the same time, they limited themselves to collecting a certain percentage from the number of sheep, retaining only a third or fourth of what they collected, and the rest remained with the society of the given village that contributed the zakat, for distribution to their poor. The collection of sunset was carried out in the fall, and it could be used not only for the benefit of the poor, but also for public needs, especially in case of war.

4. Residents of the villages of the site served the Akhtyns a kind of duty called “buttermilk”.

Akhtynsky skyscrapers. Artist B.Z. Shalumov

HM. Khashaev compares it with Russian “feedings”. This privilege of the residents of Akhty consisted in the fact that each of the Akhty residents had the right to go “on a visit” to any of the villages of the site once a year. They often went in parties of 100 to 500 people and “stayed” in a given village for the whole day. The owners of the houses where the “guests” were accommodated were obliged to feed well not only them, but also the horses of the Akhtyns. The “guest” had no right to stay in the same village for another night in the same year. The custom of buttermilk applied to the village, and not to the number of its inhabitants. Akhtynets, who did not visit any village of the site during the year for buttermilk, even if he came there the next year, then over the past year could not demand anything from the residents of this village.

It is quite obvious that the privilege of buttermilk among the Akhty residents placed a heavy burden on the residents of the remaining villages of Akhty-pair 1st. Moreover, the smaller the village, the more painful it was for its residents to perform this custom. Yu.M. Kobishchanov compares buttermilk with what was used in Kievan Rus"polyud" This was the name given to the prince’s annual tour of his possessions to collect tribute and other purposes. Complexes of a similar type, bearing local names, were widespread in different regions of the world at the stage of transition from the primary formation to the feudal one (early feudal societies).

During polyudye, the bearer of early state (or potestar-political) power (leader, priest, king) or his deputy (heir to the throne, governor, envoy, etc.), accompanied by a squad and entourage, walked along the traditional route of the principalities, communities and borderlands subject to him land, exercising their privileges here. The functions of polyudye can be divided into economic, political, judicial, religious-ritual, symbolic, etc. In the Caucasus, in addition to Dagestan, polyudye existed, in particular, in Georgia.

The custom of buttermilk also existed in the Rutul Union of Rural Communities neighboring Akhtypara, where it had even more pronounced features. In addition to the obvious economic functions, the custom of buttermilk clearly shows political and symbolic functions: maintaining the dominance of the “citizens” of the dominant rural community over the subordinate villages.

5. The next advantage of the Akhtyns was that they paid 300 rams for the blood, while they took 600 rams from the residents of the villages under their control, i.e. the blood of an Akhtyn “was” twice as expensive. For the murder of an Akhtyn resident by any of the residents of the 1st Akhtypara, except for the Akhtyn residents, he was subject to half payment for blood, and if any of the residents of the same area killed an Akhtyn resident, then he paid the full payment, which was also charged then, when the matter was between two or more Akhtyns or between residents of other villages in the area.

Thus, cases of blood were resolved only in the 1st Akhtypara.

In addition to the above five conditions for the privileged position of the Akhtyns relative to other villages of the 1st Akhtypara, there were two more advantages that the Akhtyns enjoyed. One of them operated within the Samur Valley, and the other throughout Dagestan and the Caucasus.

The first advantage concerned the masliat and was expressed in the fact that if residents of any village in the Samur Valley (Samur velayat) applied for mediation to Akhty and were refused, they could no longer find intermediaries in the entire valley. The basis for this was the general belief that “it means that the matter is extremely messed up or dishonest if the Akhtynts - the smartest and oldest of the Samur brothers - refused to participate in this matter.” The above example clearly and clearly demonstrates the high status of the Akhta jamaat in the region. It should be added that the village of Akhty was the largest in the Samur valley and one of the largest in all of Dagestan.

The second advantage of the Akhtyns was a custom (adat), called “barkhu”. This custom was that any person, no matter who he was and no matter where he came from, who took an Akhtyn girl as his wife, in addition to fulfilling all the conditions of Sharia and adat relating to marriage, was also obliged to contribute 3 rubles (or things for this amount) in favor of the rural magal of Akhty to which the bride belonged.

As already mentioned, in the village of Akhty there were 40 tukhums (Lezgian “sikhil”). From each tukhum, one “elder” was elected by its members, who had the status of the head of the tukhum. These elected 40 elders

managed all elective affairs of both the Akhtyns and residents of the remaining villages of Akhtypara who were serving buttermilk. This control also extended to military events, in which the Akhtyn qadi and persons with the spiritual title of “effendi” also took part. The service life of each aksakal was limited only by the desire of his tukhum. The title of aksakal was hereditary in Akhty, in a directly descending line, “as long as there were people capable of it,” and if there were no such people in the direct line, then a relative of the former aksakal was elected from a lateral descending line. If even under this condition there was no capable person, worthy to lead the tukhum and become an aksakal ruler, was then elected from members of a different family, but of the same tukhum.

Thus, heredity alone did not give the right to be an aksakal; the consent of the members of the tukhum was also required to choose a successor.

The remuneration of the Akhtyn elders for their service to the community was as follows: 1) the community was obliged to provide them with horses if they undertook a trip in the interests of the community; 2) all aksakals were certainly invited to weddings and mourning events, while having the right to bring one of their family members with them. Yu.M. Kobishchanov saw in this adat the existence of an embryonic form of buttermilk in the very community of the village of Akhty. The same custom existed in the Lezgin unions of the Dokuzpara and Altypara communities neighboring Akhtypara. A similar privilege was enjoyed by some individuals in the mountainous Georgian region of Khevi, in particular the princes of Kazbegi; 3) after the analysis of the blood cases, each of the aksakals of the part of Akhta in which the accused lived (the village is divided into two halves by the Akhtychay River) received from the plaintiff, who was satisfied in court, some kind of weapon or utensil and a piece of fabric called “burmet” . At the same time, it was ensured that the value of the things distributed to each elder was the same. Similar gifts were given to the effendi.

This was the procedure for rewarding elders for a trial in a blood case if the incident took place in Akhty. As for other villages of the 1st Akhtypara, they turned to Akhty for trial in various types of cases and litigation, except for blood cases. In the last case (blood cases), a court of ten aksakals and one effendi was sent one by one from Akhta to the scene of the incident.

In Akhty there were also the “closest executors” of the decisions of the aksakals – “chaushis”, of which there were two, one on each side of Akhty.

Since in the remaining villages of the 1st Akhtypara there was no institution of aksakals and chaushes, Akhtyn chaushis, if necessary, were sent to the villages of this area, which, as we see, were actually ruled by Akhtyn aksakals.

Akhtyn chaushis were elected by elders, and their choice had to be approved by the community. For the performance of their duties they received: 1) from the community one bull per year; 2) at every wedding or memorial they received oil, meat, cereals and firewood. All this was given to them “in small quantities” by the family that held the wedding or memorial; 3) after the analysis of blood cases in Akhty, when distributing gifts to aksakals and effendi, each of the chaushes also received a gift in the form of things worth 3 rubles.

As for the five Akhtyparin villages located in the upper part of the Akhtychay River basin (the so-called 2nd Akhtypara), they had significantly greater independence than other villages of the union. In practice, their dependence on Akhty was manifested in the following two provisions: 1) in the event of a war between the Akhtyns and anyone, the residents of the 2nd Akhtypara, like all other villages of the union, had to help the Akhtyns and for this in a similar case they enjoyed mandatory protection Akhtyntsev; 2) if mutual disputes and conflicts of the residents of this area could not be resolved on the spot, then they were resolved through the mediation of the Akhtyn elders. Otherwise, these villages were independent. The buttermilk of the Akhtyns did not apply to them.

According to the “Description of the Samur District”, “partly the main point of the 2nd Akhtypara” was the village of Khnov (Khin). Each of the five villages in this area had its own “rulers” - aksakals and chaushes. In Khnov and Gdym, as well as in Akhty, each tukhum elected its own aksakal, and in the other three villages (Borch, Maza and Fiy) the number of aksakals did not correspond to the number of tukhums, but depended on the number of inhabitants, for for every 20 households (“dyms” ) there was one elder. They were chosen from among “worthy people.” All villages in the area had one chaush.

The village of Gdym was “in some way” subordinate to Khnov. The author of the “Description” compares this subordination with that which existed then in each Magala village relative to its naib, regardless of his common subordination to the head of the district.

According to our source, conflicts often occurred between the villages of Khnov and Borch, and in such cases, neither side used the military assistance of the Akhtyns, who maintained neutrality and treated the conflicting villages equally.

Aksakals in Khnov were elected hereditarily, as in Akhty. They did not receive any remuneration for their service to the community, even when dealing with blood cases. As for the Khnov chaush, his election and reward were the same as in Akhty.

In the remaining four villages of this section of Akhtypara, aksakals were not hereditary. Members of the rural community “known for their truthfulness and experience” were elected as aksakals. Their service, as in Khnov, was not rewarded in any way. The chaushes of these villages were elected in the same way as in Akhty, however, they did not receive, like the Akhty chaushes, one bull from the community annually and a three-ruble reward when examining cases of blood, but only had the right to the same gifts at weddings and memorials, as in Oh you.

Sunset was also observed in this section of Akhtypara, but was not controlled, as in the 1st Akhtypara. There were no customs of buttermilk and barhu.

In those Akhtyparin villages in which there were courts for the analysis of blood cases, it was not the plaintiff himself who received the awarded satisfaction, but his vakil (representative), who also received one bull from the accused already in his favor.

Issues of war and peace in the union of rural communities of Akhtypara, as in other Samur unions, were decided not by the elders, but by the entire community, and if the community decided to wage war with someone, then the elders had no right to interfere with this decision, but only had to accept assume responsibility for military activities “as people chosen for intelligence, conscientiousness and experience.”

The highest clergy rank in the Samur unions was qadi (qazi). There were only four of them in the Samur valley - in Akhty, Khnov, Rutul and Shinaz, i.e. two each in the Akhtyparinsky and Rutulsky unions. There were no Qadis in Dokuzpar and Altypar. As it is said in the “Description”, “there were no more of them because the people, on whom it depended whether to have a qadi or not, did not want these gentlemen.” The source reports that around the middle of the 18th century. the highest clergy in the region were “effendi”, “and since the Sharia says that one should have qadis, these four villages chose them from among the most learned and worthy effendi.”

Noteworthy is the presence of Qadis in large villages of the region, which were also centers of political gravity. The reason for the presence of qads in the indicated populated areas should also be sought, in our opinion, in considerations of political prestige.

All Akhtyparin villages were subordinate to the Akhtyn qadi in matters subject to consideration by such a clergyman, not excluding Khnov, who, although he had his own qadi, was still considered less influential and authoritative than the Akhtyn qadi. Nevertheless, the Khnovites “closely” obeyed the court of their qadi.

Despite the fact that each of the four qadis of the region served “their” territory, the litigants, no matter who and wherever they were from, had the right to sue any qadi. A party dissatisfied with the decision made by one qadi could transfer the case to another qadi, while announcing to him the provision of Sharia, on the basis of which the case was dealt with by the previous qadi.

The next rank of clergy after the qadi in the Samur valley was the effendi. There were as many of them in the region “as there were mullahs worthy of being elected to this high rank.” However, their number in all Samur communal unions never exceeded thirty. Receiving the title of effendi by a mullah did not oblige him to change his place of residence. As for the mullahs, their number in each village corresponded to the number of mosques.

In Samur unions, the qadi, “as the supreme person,” unlike the effendi, was not present in the aksakal court, but tried cases in his own place. In the village of Akhty, two effendi appeared at the gathering of elders - one from each side of Akhty.

At a time when there were no qadis yet (until the middle of the 18th century), their functions were performed by effendis, and in those villages where there were no effendis, they were replaced by the most knowledgeable mullahs, especially if both litigants agreed in advance with the decision of this mullah. It must be emphasized that the mullahs only examined complaints; they did not take part in administrative matters.

Both mullahs and effendi were elected by the community and were necessarily approved by the qadi. At the same time, the effendi were tested by the qadi in the degree of their knowledge, received a blessing from him, and the qadi determined, based on the degree of learning of each effendi, the importance of cases that could be entrusted to his trial.

On Fridays and days of religious holidays, the imams in the juma mosques were qadis, and where there were none, the effendi took turns. Where there were no effendi, the services were led by those of the mullahs “who were older and famous for their piety.”

When considering inheritance cases, the qadi received a maximum of two percent of the amount of the inheritance, and part of this amount was allocated to one or those effendi who, regardless of the qadi, were invited to court. If there were no objections from the persons sharing the inheritance, then the decision of the effendi was as final as the decision of the qadi. Efendi dissatisfied with the court went to the qadi, and he tried the case anew. If the qadi found that the effendi had made the correct decision, he could receive the reward that had already been given to the effendi who judged, but only if the efendi himself agreed to it. If the qadi found that the matter was decided incorrectly, then he received the money himself. In the event that the established fee had already been given to the effendi, it was taken from him and transferred to the qadi. The percentage in favor of the effendi was the same as in favor of the qadi.

The poor people of the communities, as well as the clergy, received from the sunset as much as the community members wanted to allocate to them.

In the Samur basin, in the distant past, there was a process of resettlement caused by internal and external reasons. During the period of this resettlement, the village of Akhty provided its services: it took the settlers under its protection and allowed them, under certain conditions, to settle on its territory. This policy of the Akhtyns was called the commendation system. For example, residents of some Tsakhur villages, subjected to frequent attacks by the Khnovites, turned to Akhty for help. The community allowed them to move to Akhty on the condition of paying a tax (kharj) and doing some field work for free. The quarter in which the Tsakhurs settled is called “Kuliyar Myagle”. Residents of the Güney side of Akhta derive this name from the Turkic word “kul” (slave), and the Kuliyars themselves associate it with the word “kul” (wheat).

The Akhtyns allowed the settlers to settle on the right bank of the Akhtychay, which had not yet been occupied by residential buildings, but belonged to the Akhtyns who lived on the left bank. An agreement was concluded between the Akhtyns and the settlers, according to which the latter occupied the right bank of the Akhtychay, but in return they had to pay an annual tribute to the Akhtyns in grain and livestock. The agreement was written on a stone, which was strictly guarded by the Akhtyn people. However, over time, the position of the inhabitants of the right bank of the river became so strengthened that they considered it possible to refuse tribute. First of all, the residents of the right bank decided to destroy a legal document - an inscription on a stone. At night they moved to the left bank of the river, killed the sentry guarding the stone slab, and beat off the inscription about the dependent position with a hammer, and in order to avoid noise when destroying the inscription, the slab was covered with felt. With the destruction of the inscription, the residents of the right bank stopped paying tribute to the Akhtyns.

The Akhty community, which owned a large amount of pasture and mowing land, often leased these lands to communities that needed them for a certain fee.

The structure of the union and the nature of relations within Akhtypara had much in common with the Rutul Union. This also applies to the relationship between the main village and its dependents. In particular, if feudal rent in feudal possessions fell into the hands of the feudal owner, then the tribute collected by the Akhtynts and Rutuls from dependent villages, as well as the right to buttermilk, extended to a wide range of persons. This, in turn, left a peculiar imprint on the social struggle of dependent communities against the dominance of the Rutul and Akhtyn jamaats. The last statement applies, first of all, to Rutul, because we do not have data on the protests of the villages of Akhtypara against the community of Akhty.

The villages dependent on Akhta and Rutul experienced pressure from a wide range of people, i.e., essentially, the strong, large jamaats of Akhta and Rutul. If the feudal owner could be physically destroyed and the dependence on him could be ended, then in the case under consideration it was much more difficult for the dependent villages to end the peculiar feudal oppression. The difficulty was that each jamaat of dependent villages individually was weaker than the jamaat of the main village. F.F. Simonovich reported in 1796 that there were 600 households in Akhty. The report of the Baku commandant V.A. Repin dated 1809 states that in the “city” of Akhta there were “up to 1000” households. According to F.A. Shnitnikov (1832) and K.K. Krabbe (1835), the village of Akhty consisted of 800 families. The large communities of Akhty and Rutula actually acted as a collective feudal lord in relation to dependent villages.

A similar phenomenon took place in the Dzhar region, where the Avar and Tsakhur communities were in the position of “group feudal lords in relation to the Georgian peasants who became dependent on them.”

As M.A. Aglarov noted, tendencies towards the separation and varying degrees of separation of centers of “free societies” were ubiquitous, but such a complete elevation as Akhty had over the rest of the villages of the union is unknown in Dagestan.

Dependent communities did not have the opportunity for united protests for their independence, being under the control of “patrons”, the Akhtyn and Rutul jamaats, on occasion, provided each other with assistance, including armed assistance, to suppress the resistance of the villages dependent on them. In this regard, the history of the struggle between the village of Khryug (Hurug) and Rutul is very indicative. One of the results of this confrontation was the expansion of the territory of Akhtypara.

During one of the clashes between the villages due to the refusal of the Khryug residents to perform buttermilk in favor of the residents of Rutul, the latter, obviously unable to bring the Khryug residents into submission on their own, turned to the Akhtyns for help. It should be noted here that in the event of hostilities, all villages included in the Rutul Union were obliged to help the Rutul community. As a reward for their help, Rutul promised the Akhtyn people a wooded mountainside on the right bank of the Samur, which belonged to the Khryuga community and which at that time was the border between the Akhtyparinsky and Rutulsky unions. The Akhtyntsy “willingly agreed to help” not so much because of the reward offered by the Rutulians, but because of the desire to punish the Khryugtsy for refusing to serve buttermilk to Rutulu, for if the Khryugtsy got away with it with impunity, it could serve as an example for the Akhtyparin villages that served buttermilk to the Akhtyntsy.

As a result of the clash, during which, despite the fact that the superiority of forces was clearly on the side of Rutul and Akhta, the Khryug residents showed stubborn resistance (12 people died from the Akhty residents alone), Khrug was burned. Sources do not report losses of the Khryugs and Rutuls.

After the end of hostilities, the Akhtyns began to insist even more on reward, demanding compensation for the blood shed. In this situation, the Rutulians, taking into account the situation of the war-ravaged Khryugtsy, “in whose fate all the neighbors took part,” in return for the mountain promised to the Akhtyntsy, were forced to cede to them three villages of the Rutul Union: Gogaz, Usur and Kaka, “as the closest neighbors” of Akhtypara .

The “Description of the Samur District” does not say exactly when these events occurred. This gap is filled with data from Abd al-Hay's chronograph:

“There was a battle between us (the Khryug people. - Z.Z.) and Rutul with his magal and Akhty with his magal for three years and many of us were killed. They cut off our road on all sides and the other routes along which food (food) came to us. We found ourselves in a very difficult situation, and there was no way out of [the state of] our hunger, and there was no help for us either from the Muslims or from the amirs. Then we went [comprising] twenty men, four women, with seven shrouds to the gathering of the Akhtyns, and we bowed our faces before the gathering. After this, the Akhtyns and Rutulians conspired together with their Magals and burned our village, and destroyed our walls and knocked down our minaret, on Saturday, the twenty-ninth day of the month of Safar in the year of the Prophet - peace be upon him - in 1189.” (The month of Safar 1189 AH began on April 3, 1775).

The same events are narrated by an Arabic inscription on a stone mounted above the entrance to the mosque of the village of Khryug: “A battle took place between us (i.e., the residents of Khryug, on the one hand) and the Rutulians with their magal and the Akhtynts with their magal (on the other hand) , which lasted for three years. And many of our men died. Then they made peace with us on the date of the Prophet, in 1190” (i.e. in 1776–1777).

Soon after these events and the expansion of the Akhtyparin Union, two more villages of the Rutul Union - Yalak and Lutkun - approached the Akhtyns to join Akhtypara. However, the Akhtyns, “referring to the fact that they had already acquired three villages from the Rutulians,” refused their request. Having received a refusal, the Yalak and Lutkun people left the Rutul Union of Rural Communities, resorting to the patronage of the Kazikumukh Khanate.

The growing influence of the Akhtyn jamaat was reflected in the fact that the inhabitants of all Samur communal unions were often called Akhtyntsy in Dagestan by analogy with the Akusha-Dargo union, the population of which was known as “Akushintsy”.

Periods of peaceful relations between various Samur communities were often followed by phases of tension. In 1728, I. Gerber noted the good neighborliness, cohesion and mutual assistance of the Samur community unions: “These five districts stand firmly together, and what happens to one, the others do as they honor themselves.” At the same time, there is information from sources about conflicts between various Samur communities. In particular, information has been preserved about clashes between Akhtypara and the Miskin-Jinians, who were usually helped by the Dokuzparin Union led by the village of Dzhaba. Such clashes took place in 1682, 1702–1703, 1708–1709, 1715, 1782–1783, 1803–1804.

There is evidence that the Akhtyns recruited the troops of the feudal rulers of Dagestan during this struggle. The “Description of the Samur District” says that “during one of the most fierce wars” the Akhtyns with the Miskinjins and Dokuzparins were the first to turn to Surkhai Khan of Kazikumukh and Umma Khan of Avar for help. “The war ended with Miskindzhi being burned to the ground.” This event, which occurred in 1197 AH (1782–1783), is also reported in Arabic-language sources.

In turn, the feudal rulers also used the military forces of the Samur communal unions in their military enterprises. In particular, the “Description” reports that the Kazikumukh khans “often used the assistance of the Samurs in their war with the Cuban and Nukha khans.”

Clashes between the Akhtyns also occurred with the Altyparinsky Union of Rural Communities, the main village of which was Mikrah.

Armed conflicts also took place between Akhty and Rutul. Written sources recorded clashes between them with the involvement of troops of various feudal rulers in 1536–1537 (according to other sources, in 1540–1541), 1541–1542, 1542–1543. The latest clash known to us between Akhty and Rutul took place in 1204 AH (1789–1790).

K.K. Krabbe in 1835 reported on the good neighborly relations of the Akhtyparinsky Union with Dokuzpara, while relations with the “Rutul Magal” were tense.

There is evidence from Arabic-language written sources about plague epidemics in Akhty that took place in 1688–1689 and 1730–1731.

In 1812, after the formation of the Kyura Khanate, Samur communal unions, including Akhtypara, entered into Russian citizenship, pledging to pay taxes in sheep, but taxes were paid irregularly, as evidenced by Russian documents. In order to force the Akhtyparin residents to pay taxes, such measures as the detention of their herds grazing in Transcaucasia were applied to them.

Akhtypara, like other Samur unions, retained de facto independence until 1839. Moreover, the inhabitants of the Samur Valley took an active part in the famous Cuban uprising of 1837. One of the main leaders of the highlanders of the Samur region was “Sheikh Mulla Akhtynsky”.

In 1839, large forces of tsarist troops under the command of General Golovnin were moved into the Samur Valley. After a bloody battle in the Adzhiakhur Gorge, the resistance of the mountaineers was suppressed. Russian troops entered Akhty and a fortress was founded here. Akhtypara, like other Samur lands, was placed under the control of the tsarist administration.