Do Anatolian Turks still have tribes? If not, when and how did tribes cease to exist?

Oct 2012
3,315
Des Moines, Iowa
#1
Most of the Turkic peoples, including the Oghuz Turks, were divided into different tribal groups. For example, one of the Oghuz tribes was the Kayı tribe. The Ottomans claimed that Osman was descended from this tribe.

When the Turks conquered and settled in Anatolia, what happened to these tribes? Did non-Turkish people in Anatolia join these tribes and become "new" Turks? Did the tribes eventually disappear? If so, how, why, and when did they disappear?
 
Last edited:
Dec 2015
147
Earth
#2
They are still around, although are refered to as Yörüks and Turkmens to distinquish their nomadic lify-style from the average Anatolian Turks. I have never heard of distinctions based on clans also. Most people just say that they are descendants of Oghuz Turks or Seljuks Turks or Ottoman Turks, the time where poeple identified by individual tribes is long gone. Atleast thats from what i have seen so far, and my credibility is worth crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yörüks
 
Jun 2012
7,420
Malaysia
#3
Probably simply merged up among themselves. Traded their old narrow tribal loyalties for a wider nationwide affinity. Just like has happened in many other nations in the world.
 

Tulun

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
3,851
Western Eurasia
#4
in general together with settling down and giving up nomad pastorialism tribe and tribal bonds progressively dissolved. If i can recall from memory (i've seen a table about it somewhere in my readings, based on tax registers, if needed i'll try to find it again) in the late 16th century around 16-17% of the Anatolian population were nomads, so that many lived in tribal organization.
Then in the 17th century rural collapse their share could increase a little and they were then ultimetly settled down only in the 19th century. There are still a few nomadizing families i believe but it is a lifestyle doomed to extintion. Yes non-Turks did assimilate into these tribal organizations, converted freed slaves of them, servants, intermerried people... and then not only Turks were nomadizing in the first place, there were of course Kurds and some Mongols, Arabs too among the nomadizing cemaats.

edit: here is the table that was in my mind, i remembered wrongly, it only shows data for the Anadolu eyaleti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia_Eyalet which only covered the western part of the Anatolia geographic region. nomadizing population could be even higher in Central and Eastern Anatolia that time. It is in French but i think understandable, showing tax paying households, A column for datas from the tax registers prepared in 1520-35, B column for 1570-80.



source: Ö.L. Barkan: Essai sur les données statistiques des registres de recensement dans l'Empire ottoman aux XVe et XVIe siècles on JSTOR p 31.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
783
Antalya
#5
Central Anatolia is supposed to have a large portion of people retaining Central Asian customs and culture so perhaps this extends to tribal affinities? It also happens to be the most conservative region of Turkey.

In my anecdotal experience, Western Turkey is more "Turkic" then Central Turkey and East (up to Azerbeycan ofcourse). Genetic researches also show that Central Asian genetic contribution is more prevalent in Aegean/Mediterranean coastline compared to inner Anatolia.

--

As for topic, what was left of tribalism (beyliks?) in Turkey probably destroyed by Ottoman Empire.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
783
Antalya
#7
How were Ottomans able to "destroy" Turkish tribes, and why weren't Kurdish tribes also destroyed? Why do Kurds still have tribes even today?
Perhaps someone else could answer your question with historical rigor, but imo, it's probably due to Kurdish tribes not being a threat to the dynasty of Ottomans. It is probably better for Kurds to be divided (thus easy to control), and Turks to be unified under a single Beylik. A Turkish Beylik could get the support of Turks in the region if they were powerful enough. That's probably why Ottomans didn't want any sort of aristocrat family, let a lone a Beylik.

This is potentially similar to the popularity of devshirme. I think one of the reasons why the Devshirme preferred over Turkish population is due to the fact that a devshirme could never ever claim the throne, where as same could not be said for a Turkish aristocrat family.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2017
167
America
#8
They are still around, although are refered to as Yörüks and Turkmens to distinquish their nomadic lify-style from the average Anatolian Turks. I have never heard of distinctions based on clans also. Most people just say that they are descendants of Oghuz Turks or Seljuks Turks or Ottoman Turks, the time where poeple identified by individual tribes is long gone. Atleast thats from what i have seen so far, and my credibility is worth crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yörüks
Do you know why clan based distinctions don't exist anymore? Wouldn't people use the clan's name as their surname most of the time? Or did that never happen in Turkey?