Greek V Turkish Food

[Steve Plotnicki]

Greece is Ottoman but it is also Italian and Slavic. Where does the boat from Greece go? So it isn't pure Ottoman in the way some other cuisines are.

[Wilfrid]

Finally had time to read this thread. It was acknowledged early on that Greek cuisine is not homogenous, but the same point has not been made with sufficient specificity about Turkish cuisine. On this occasion, Steve P. is right - inadvertently no doubt - about the important role played by the aristocracy. There is a distinct Turkish cuisine associated with the Sultans of the Ottoman empire. It is distinguished by complex spicing, the use of fruits, nuts, and other sweet and fragrant flavors (rosewater, for example), and a revernece for rice cookery comparable to that seen in Japan. The classic dishes of this cuisine are elegent, intricate pilaffs. You can find this kind of food in some restaurants in Istanbul - the restaurant at the top of the Sheraton was serving a tasting menu of these dishes last time I was there. Turkish food served in ordinary restaurants and in the street is really quite different, a lot more simple, and does indeed share much in common with Greek cuisine. I won't speculate about the food of the Turkish countryside, because I sometimes feel fettered by ignorance.

I am not aware of any equivalent aristocratic tradition in Greece. I would just say that there's a pretty big disjuncture between the food of ancient Greece, as codified by Athanasius in the Deipnosophists and modern Greek food.

Edited February 21, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Adam Balic]

I doubt that modern Turkish cooking is based entirely on the Ottoman tradition either. Much of the mainland Greek population would seem to be slavic, but irrespective of ethnic group, they were still dominated by the Ottomans.

I don't think that anybody is saying that modern Greek food is entirely based on Ottoman cuisine, but certainly much of it is. So do the Greeks have a definable cuisine or is it another variation on the theme of being the cuisine of an Ex-Ottoman state?

[Wilfrid]

Here's a neat little summary of my point. I had forgotten the kitchens in the palace, although the harem remains fresh in my mind.

[Adam Balic]

Wilfrid - I quote myself as I think that it is clear that there is no issue with Turkish food being more 'refined':

The original point was: Are the two cuisines sufficiently different to warrant them been classified as seperate cuisines.

One may very well be more refined then the other, but this does not imply that they are different cuisines.

From what I can see here, Greek cuisine is largely based on and is a more rustic version of Turkish cuisine.

Or is this incorrect?

The point being, do the Greeks have a definable cuisine of there own or not?

Edited February 21, 2003 by Adam Balic (log)

[Adam Balic]

I have had the thought that maybe if an individual of Greek heritage read this thread, then maybe they would be upset.

So, by way of appology let me say that I think that Greece likely has its own cuisine. All this stuff in the thread is about being able to prove this, which is something that we should be able to do .

[Tonyfinch]

The dishes of aristocratic Turkey the Wilfred describes has a lot more in common with other Muslim Royal cuisines than anything to be found in Greek food, which begs the question does Greece have an aristocratic or haute cuisine as such? If so I've never found it but then I haven't eaten in the top Athenian hotels either.

My guess is that when Greeks want to eat "refined" cuisine they go French, or to a kind of Greek-French or Greek- Italian hybrid, rather than to Moslem Royal-reflecting Greece's greater cultural allegiance to it's Christian neighbours and Western Europe.

But as The Real Greek rerstaurant in London is trying to demonstrate, their IS such a thing as Greek cuisine and maybe its very rusticity can be the foundation for taking it out of the backwater it's been up and giving it-dare I say it-culinary relevance. It's already beginning to happen with the Greek wine industry, while the Turkish wine industry is dead on its feet.

[Adam Balic]

Tony - I just found this extremely good Greek food site. Very interesting information on Greek food and culture (even has an article on Marmalade and Pectin!).

Greek Food

[Tonyfinch]

Good work, Mr B.

[jhlurie]

The Ottoman Empire is what became of the Roman Empire, which attributed much of its higher culture to the Greeks.

As you were saying? 

Jason has got Plotz here, and actually the greek connection goes BOTH ways in time. The empire was an offshoot of Rome--which of course was strongly influenced by the Greeks.

But AFTER that split, the Greeks became the cultural backbone of the Ottoman Empire. It may, in terms of locality, have seemed more like a "Turkish" empire... but it wasn't in terms of actual day-to-day cultural influence.

I would suppose, as others have, that the events of the past hundred years or so might have had an effect though.

[g.johnson]

The Ottoman Empire is what became of the Roman Empire, which attributed much of its higher culture to the Greeks.

As you were saying? 

Jason has got Plotz here, and actually the greek connection goes BOTH ways in time. The empire was an offshoot of Rome--which of course was strongly influenced by the Greeks.

But AFTER that split, the Greeks became the cultural backbone of the Ottoman Empire. It may, in terms of locality, have seemed more like a "Turkish" empire... but it wasn't in terms of actual day-to-day cultural influence.

I would suppose, as others have, that the events of the past hundred years or so might have had an effect though.

Err, don't think so. The Ottoman Turks came out of central asia and kicked the Romans out of Constantinople in 1453. It was ruled by Osman I and his descendents until 1918. And it was, of course, an Islamic empire.

Click.

[vmilor]

There are so many good points made in this thread but somehow they are not coming together. Some good insights but then they are not expounded on. Let me pick a few:

First, Plotncicki is on the right track claiming the mediterranean connection of Greeek Cuisine. One should give Greeks credit for excelling in seafood preparations along with Genovese and Venetians who settled in the section of Istanbul called Pera in the 19th century and even earlier. Fish is something which did not exist in rustic, Anatolian peasant fare. Even today, most middle class Turks do not eat shellfish but they like fresh fish. On the other hand, alongside sophisticated rice pilafs, tian d'agneaus, braised meats and vegetables etc., fish was a major component of what you guys call aristocratic ( Ottomans did not have an aristocracy strictally speaking, I will call them a Westernized, bureaucratic elite which were adverse to entrepreneurship and very selective in orientation) tradition. To date members of this class are very particular about fish. For instance turbot from black sea(which is more highly prized than Atlantic turbot), will not be consumed before mid-March(they are too skinny), and they are best caught in Marmara sea in Beykoz, towards the end of march and then they should be served with a particular leafy rocket, etc. But the point is eating fish remained an elite thing till more entrepreneur Greeks(called the Rums) started their taverns like Facyo and Hristo in the Bosphorous in the 50s. They also trained masses of Anatolian peasants in the basics of mediterranean cooking and taught them the art of service. Today many big name Turkish restaurateurs are the ex-comi boys of the Greek forerunners.

The true Ottoman cuisine did not quite make it to the street, i.e. restaurants. The forerunner was Abdullah Efendi. He came from the particular region, Mengen, somebody alluded to as the breeding ground of chefs. He first opened a place in Beyoglu then a sumptous place in Bosphorous hills. He used to grow his vegetables and fruits in the 60s. Kind of forerunner to CA trends today. His cuisine was truly Ottoman and he would also cook French classics, such as canard a l'orange, chateaubriand, etc. I was lucky that at a tender age, in the 70s, my family would take me there, so, later, when I started going to L'Oasis, Girardet,etc, in 1985 I was not dumbfounded. Anyway, after the demise of Abdullah (he died and the inheritors started fighting and could not run the place) and for a long time restaurants in Istanbul displayed the following properties. There were the so called kebap houses, run by chefs coming from the south and southeast and although they were experts in the art of chopping(not mincing) good lamb and spicing it, they did not know anything else. Then there were the fish shacks, who also prepared lots of cold and hot mezze and salads, but somehow they never ventured into refined preparations and became replicas of each other and shied away from experimentation. Then there were the so called family restaurants which sometimes billed themselves as Ottoman, where one would it mostly healthy and stewed dishes and vegetables cooked in olive oil. There were also a number of specialty restaurants: serving pastries like manti(ravioli with minced meat and yoghourt sauce, boreks) or tandoor cooked lamb, etc.

It is only in the last 10 years or so that Istanbul witnessed the emergence of more ambitious restaurants, attempting to revive the Ottoman tradition and or adapt it to new taste. Strangely the forerunner was a German chef who admired Ottoman cuisine and was hired by a Swiss manager to run the Tugra rest. at the Kempinski managed Ciragan hotel. His assistant, Vedat Basaran, was equally passionate about the lost tradition and during their tenure Tugra became an exciting place, one I would take discriminating non Turkish friends. Others followed suit, often with less success.

I would like to address some historical and cultural and class issues raised by Balic and others and also talk about regional differences in Turkey(quite significant) but I am runnning out of time. If there is interest perhaps later....

[jhlurie]

Was the cuisine really formed by who ruled? I don't think so. From what I'd always read most of the cultural impetus when the romans got cut into two big pieces shifted towards the greeks. When the Turks took back over that influence had been in place for quite a few years. How much survived is the question.

[Wilfrid]

Vmilor, there is much interest in such informed contributions (especially if they don't seem to contradict what I've said ). I look forward to reading more.

[Tonyfinch]

I would like to address some historical and cultural and class issues raised by Balic and others and also talk about regional differences in Turkey(quite significant) but I am runnning out of time. If there is interest perhaps later....

Please. Feel free.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Vedat - Thanks so much. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

[vmilor]

I am in trouble before such a discerning audience but I will do my best. Let me start with a caveat though. Strong connections between, say economic policy and class structure are well established and easy to argue. Connections between economic development process and gastronomic traditions are more loosely connected and entail more serious research than is the case here. So forgive me for some caricatures drawn up to emphasize trends and make them look simpler than they really are.

Well, as far as I can see there are 3 periods in modern Turkey's political-economy which correspond to 3 phases in the plight of the cuisine:

1. The Rule of the Bureaucratic Elite and the Hegemony of Ottoman Cuisine.

2. The Rise of the Bourgeoise and the Fragmentation of Cuisine

3. Global Orientation and the Identity Crisis/Impermanance of Cuisine

Let me explain.

1.1923-1950: modern Turkey was born out of the ashes of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Ottoman empire which made the wrong alliance in the First World War. The independence struggle was led by a civil-military Western educated elite who shared similar aspirations to Meiji restorateurs of Japan. One such aspiration was Westernization under the guidance of this elite whose members were drawn from among well educated upper bureaucratic Ottoman families. A related aspiration was to create an internal bourgeoisie. In the Ottoman Empire trading activities were monopolized by Christian and Jewish minorities and the muslim upper class shied away from entrepreneurship. The new leaders of the Turkish Republic attempted to change the situation under the tutelage of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who believed that without a capitalist class the county would never modernize. At the same time he was a firm believer(not unlike today's Mahathir of Malaysia) in etatisme or dirigisme, i.e. the state guidance of the development process through capitalist planning. He formed a modern party, ruled till his death in 1938 and his successor adapted a multi party sysem in 1946. During this period, the bourgeoisie, most of whom are now the biggest business houses-conglomerates in Turkey such as Koc and Eczacibasi, blossomed strictly under state tutelage. The would be businessman were literally hand picked by the ruling bureaucrats. Some of them were the children of bureaucrats. Others were typically related through marriages. However, the creation of this class was not seen as nepotism. It was part of a grand vision and national development strategy. Ataturk himself and his entourage was blatantly elitist. The culture of the masses imbued with tradition and religion was perceived as a hindrance to development. Ataturk initiated a number of reforms, separated religion and the state, changed the script, he even banned the traditional cap, the so called fez, thinking it as a retrograde symbol.

I can only rely to the anectodes I listened from grand parents to depict the cuisine of the times. The ruling elite was truly discerning and elitist in orientation. Wives were like star chefs, commanding an army in the kitchen and preparing an array of cold and hot hors d'oeuvres, complicated soups, rice-pilafs with game, braised meats with nuts, etc. Mortar and pestle was often used to smash nuts and separate the oils to prepare in dishes like "Circassian chicken" and even today while few Italian rest. prepare pesto in the traditional way(one exception: Ca Peo) it would be a sacrilege in Turkey to use a blender for some sauces.

Well, what about the "people"? Given the undisputed prominence and status of the refined cuisine at the time, other groups were quite apologetic in their eating habits. Their diet was mostly centered around hearty soups, not unlike cucina povera of Tuscany and while the tradition of eating well was a nationally cherished tradition and on special occassions agricultural dwellers did spit a whole lamb ( I do not know the "churra" breed of la Mancha but the "kivircik" breed, tandoori oven roasted or roasted underground in a pit eaten at 6 weeks old in Spring can be nirvana in rustic cooking) and enjoyed it with the rice prepared by the dripping fat of baby lamb. While such dishes were delicious, the elite stood away from such pleaures. I still remember the "horror" in the eyes of grandma who passed away at the age of 89, 2 years ago, when she first heard that I had eaten a whole shoulder of lamb in a "primitive" town in Northern Turkey.

2. 1950-80: The Rise of the Bourgeoisie and the Fragmentation of Cuisine.

This was basically the status described in my preceding post. In the second election after the introduction of the multi-party system the ruling centrist-etatist Republican People Party was thrown out of power in favor of Democrat Party(DP). The DP basically represented those budding upper middle bourgeois-yeomen who were not part of the RPP alliance. They came from rural areas, they were more religious in orientation and were staunch supporters of the US and the US policy in the 3rd world(a leading member called Gandhi a dangerous communist such as Stalin). Despite the very liberal pro-market rhetoric of DP though they promoted and enriched their non-elite supporters by doling them out public funds. They angered the army too much and were kicked out from power in 1960. Yet essentially, after the resumption of normal politics, the same alliance came to power again and made its peace with the civil and bureaucratic elite it was previously threatening via arrogance. Between 1950 and 80 the country pursued an agressive import substitution policy, was fairly protectionist but firmly capitalist. In this period the balance of power between the bureaucrats and businessman was seriously transformed and the relationship became one of equals.

The cuisine reflected the changes. Rural businessmen were not longer shy about transferring their cuisine in metropolitan areas and enjoying it in public sight. Kebap houses literally invaded Istanbul which the educated strata thought to be a scandalous development. Basically every region set up their own shop in Istanbul. Eating habits became fragmented. The remnant of the old elites and the grand bourgeoisie(now the richest in the country and looked up by the budding rural businessmen) often dined home, they ate Ottoman and French cuisine at the afore-mentioned(previous posting)Abdullan Efendi and a few other places, really a handful and their children typically and lavishly wined and dined in the fish shacks with their mistresses which were owned by Turco-Greeks and excelled in intimate hospitality. The quality of cuisine was fine but to quote another family member, " the experience was unique".

3. Post-80: Global orientation and the Identity Crisis.

Since this cuisine is still evolving I am on even shakier grounds here. Well, with the ending of easy import substitution the bourgeois class in Turkey was seriously challenged. The business environment became increasingly competitive and uncertain. The collapase of communism was also a drastic affair and it created new money making opportunities, esp. in illegal substances. Drug money also corrupted the governments. The World Bank and IMF imposed privatization and de-regulation. State property, both land and productive resources were ransacked, literally given away in exchange for kickbacks. Big money was made in a forthnight, then unmade, then(sometimes) made again. Some idealist businessmen, among them the Turkish-Jewish Alaton and Garik holding, Alarko had to cease productive activity such as electronics and invest in real estate. Established businesses had to re-define their identities and engage more in trade and construction at the expense of manufacturing in order to survive. In the meantime corruption scandals, esp. around the privatization of energy and banking scandals brought the ending of established political parties and last November the populace elected an untried, newly formed conservative political party who campaigned against corruption.

Now the cuisine. In the uncertain environment that I have tried to describe the current situation is quite chaotic: anything goes and nothing sticks. Restaurants come and go at a lightening speed, new fads pop up and vanish, top chefs rotate from place to place, some top hotels invest in Ottoman cuisine but the same kitchen turns up great dishes one day and inedible things next day and newly monied groups only go to "hottest" places and for the ambience only. Mostly they go to the 2 super night clubs in Bosphorous, Leila and Reina. Most people are turned away, Americans are always welcome, there are some decent restaurants in the clubs too which occupy prime real estate and tabs range between 1000 to 5000 $ for 2 (not in the restaurnats but overall bill if you dance and want a prime table) if you have not really splurged. In the meantime there are decent foreign cuisines too, esp. in big hotels. Even serious wine tastings are being conducted and a heiress of second biggest conglomerate in Turkey started making decent sauvignon and OK chardonnay and under average Cab. and very bad Merlot. Why did not she invest in the domestic varieties? For the same reason that very few restaurants(good exceptions: Bogazici Borsa and Feriye) dare to compete in the "haute" category by sticking to the national cuisine. Well, what is domestic or part of a historical heritage is not IN nowdays so it is not good business to have high aspirations in the realm of Turkish Cuisine. In the meantime and on the average Turkish are still eating fairly well.

Vedat Milor

[Adam Balic]

Vedat - what an amazing post, thank you. From the very little I know about Turkish history, I remember that food was very important to the Ottomans (as you have said) and that special cooks guilds existed and often people form certain regions of the empire were employed in the kitchens to make dishs specific from these regions.

Are you saying that much of these cuisines no longer exist? How sad if this is true.

I know what you mean about the wine. I have always wanted to try Buzbag, but the only Turkish wine I have seen is made from French vines.

[A Scottish Chef]

Well, what is domestic or part of a historical heritage is not IN nowdays so it is not good business to have high aspirations in the realm of Turkish Cuisine.  In the meantime and on the average Turkish are still eating fairly well.

Thanks for that, Vedat.

A colleague of mine is planning to purchase a restaurant in Turkey (all hail the purchasing power of the equity laden English home owners) as soon as May of this year and I'll be passing your information onto him to consider.

He is currently convinced that there are simply not enough restaurants in tourist centres serving good qaulity food.

[Tonyfinch]

He is currently convinced that there are simply not enough restaurants in tourist centres serving good qaulity food.

One of the curious aspects of some tourist countries is that they become convincedthat the tourists don't WANT to eat "good quality food". By that I mean top quality local food. Doubtless this has been brought about by tourist's ignorant demands, as we've discussed on the Spain thread. But also there is a strong assumption that if you do give people the "real" stuff they just won't like it.

Thie attitude still pertains in Chinese restaurants in London, where often the "specials" are not translated into Enflish because its just assumed that Westerners won't want them.

I remember once having to argue in a restautant just outside of Kas that I really did want the "meat" (God knows what it was), paprika, tomato and herb casserole that the locals were eating rather than another bony, dried up grilled fish.

Doubtless this is partly to do with charging top money to tourists for "tourist" food, but it also reflects a misunderstanding of the culinary curiosity of an increasing number of tourists.

So, I reckon your mate is dead right. A restaurant serving "good" food in a tourist centre in Turkey could do brilliantly.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But also there is a strong assumption that if you do give people the "real" stuff they just won't like it.

I wish this wasn't just a presumption. As much as I am inclined to agree with you about everything in your post, I think you underestimate how the lousy food got so lousy. They tried, but couldn't sell the real stuff to tourists. Even in local Chinese restaurants in London, the reason they don't translate the specials is because so few non-Chinese order them. So it isn't worth their while. Not only that, but they calculate how many portions they have based on their Chinese customer base and when you order it, it throws them off and they might not have any left for their regular customers.

I will once again revert to being a simpleton about this. You give people something to eat and they will like it or they won't. And some things just aren't going to fly no matter what. Regardless of how popular Italian cuisine has become, and no matter how many people now eat squid compared to thirty years ago, the line seems to have been drawn at squid ink. Too exotic for the upper-middle diner. Yes some people will eat it but there is something about it that prevents it from becoming as popular as carpaccio. Why that is the case is a conversation for another thread, and for Wilfrid I might add.

It seems to me, that if people think tourists will eat the local food, then they should be sent to local restaurants. But starting a restaurant for tourists that serves the local food is not reverberating with me.

[Tonyfinch]

Well what's interesting is that with the explosion of long haul mass tourism to places like Thailand, by and large you don't see restaurants there which cater specifically for tourists serving completely different food . And by and large the Thai restaurants in London are a reasonable reflection of Thai cuisine as you get it in Thailand.

Doubtless some of the more "exotic" ingredients eaten in Thai homes and that you can see in markets would mean crossing a few food hang ups for Westerners. But that's not the same as having two parallel cuisines,one of which is reserved for tourists.

Maybe the middle class tourists who paved the way sought out "real" food and convinced the tourist industry that "farangs" would indeed eat this food and so the following masses were not offered a choice.

But maybe everybody IS just more food aware and adventurous than they were when mass tourism to Spain,Greece and Turkey first took off.

Maybe those Chinese restaurants should start offering those specials in English and see what happens. Can't see that they've much to lose.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well where I do agree with you is that once people form an opinion of what tourists like to eat, it is hard to get them to change it. But the reality is that there is very little incentive for them to do so outside of the context of a clear path to making more money. That's why changes happen, as was said on the Spanish regional food thread, in dynamic ways. Still eveything needs a forerunner. In NYC, when the restaurant Mezzaluna opened, they started the carpaccio craze. Within 2 years there were a dozen copycats serving simple menus of capraccios, wood burning oven pizzas and pastas. But for example tapas hasn't been able to catch on here in the same way. And while I can speculate as to why that is, it doesn't really matter. The market has tried to support tapas places on occassion and their success has been very limited. Limited enough for someone to conclude that it isn't going to ever happen unless someone readjusts the definition of what a tapas bar means.

As for Thai being accepted, it's not that controversial ingredient wise. It is chicken, beef and pork. What's so difficult to eat there? No different then Indian food, in fact there is more choice. And the spicing routine isn't all that different, just the way they go about assembling the spicing routine. Indian food is a dry spicing routine and Thai food uses a paste. But the spices on the list are very similar. But if Thai food revolved around ingredients with "off flavors" like using a lot of offal or salted fish, I don't think it would have been accepted the same way.

[Jason Perlow]

No different then Indian food, in fact there is more choice.

Wow you just love simplifications to end a good argument, dont you?

Indian and Thai are some of the most complicated cuisines on the planet. But just because you don't get many the representative dishes in American restaurants does not necessarily make one cuisine less complicated or diverse dish-wise -- or similar to each other.

Personally, I see very little in common between Indian and Thai other than the fact they both eat rice and use chiles.

[hollywood]

Well where I do agree with you is that once people form an opinion of what tourists like to eat, it is hard to get them to change it. But the reality is that there is very little incentive for them to do so outside of the context of a clear path to making more money.

If it's not French, it's for tourists.