Comparison of structural differences between settled and nomadic yoruks on the example of Sarıkeçililer

years ago all nomads were settled but this group continues the nomadic life and as suchpresents itself as an interesting sociological phenomenon. These nomads have seriousdifficulties in passing and pasturing their animals. Nevertheless they insist on this wayof life and this makes the phenomenon worth investigating.In this work also relations and competitions between settled and nomadic peopleare considered and to this end nomadiF 6DUÕNHoLOL IDPLOLHV DQG VHWWOHG IDPLOLHV RI WKHVDPH 6DUÕNHoLOL RULJLQ DUH LQYHVWLJDWHG RQ WKHLU QDWLYH SODFHV 3URGXFWLRQ IRUPV RI WKHnomadic and settled families constitute the main concern of this work, but inner-familierand inter-familier relationships are also considered so far they have economicsignificance.It was found that nomadic economy relies exclusively on goats, but settledeconomy had three pillars of agriculture, stock-breeding and government job. This hasthe consequence that the seWWOHG6DUÕNHoLOLKDYHDKLJKHUOHYHORIZHOIDUHDQGHGXFDWLRQRelationships inside a family, which are rather democratic, do not differ much betweennomads and the settled. In contrast to this and rather surprisingly, nomadic familiesbehave independently from each other, whereas the settled families have a strongcooperation and solidarity with each other.The question of settlement of the nomads is rather complex and multi-faceted. Itseems improbable that they settle by their own inner dynamics, but if they get enoughfinancial support enabling them to buy house, land and stock-breeding facilities, theymight accept to settle.