How much are you all exposed to Turkish Zeybek versus Greek Zeibekiko? (Authentic or Mainstream) (Text Below)
Posted by seco-nunesap@reddit | AskBalkans | View on Reddit | 47 comments
In Greek Zeibekiko threads, Turks often say it looks very different (it does), but the overlap becomes clearer with familiarity. Part of this reaction is that Zeybek is a regional tradition from western, especially southwestern, Anatolia. It isn’t a "Balkan tradition", and many of its local variants are not known across Turkey. (I’m talking about Turkish Zeybek here, I am not familiar with the origins/culture around Greek Zeibekiko, for those you can see threads (1) (2), but I notice the same rhythm pattern, check the last sentence of this text out for that.):
Although etymologically ambiguous, Zeybek essentially means a "heroic outlaw" in the region (bandit, haydut). Somewhat like American cowboys, Japanese Samurais, they have an honour code. There are ranks in a Zeybek band mainly Efe and Kızan. They were mainly known for their bravery by challenging the Ottoman officers in the region, and a culture of praising them was formed around 1700's. During the Greco-Turkish war, they played an active role, mostly siding with the new Ankara government.
Most notable figures:
Atçalı Kel Mehmet Efe (1780-1830): Revolted against Ottoman Empire and briefly controlled Western Anatolia between 1829-1830.
Yörük Ali Efe (1895-1951): Fought Against the Greek Army
Çakırcalı Mehmet Efe, Kerimoğlu Eyüp Efe etc.: Beef with Ottoman officers.
The Zeybek songs are mostly written as a mourning to their death, danced to with figures symbolizing bravery. After the modern republic was founded, the dance was standardized and spread around Anatolia. It is mostly performed by men, but women have their own set of figures.
They uniquely have 9/2 9/4 rhythms, which feels more like a 4/4 counted in 9 or 18 quarternote-long intervals. Interestingly, I noticed this rhythm in this Greek Zeibekiko posted here
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
Greeks took a lot of our cultural identity. But because of their ego, they won't accept it and will present it as theirs, let alone appreciating it. Coffee, dances, meals, etc.
Right_Ad_3782@reddit
Turks think there was absolutely 0 culture and people in balkans were eating crude leaves and raw meat before they arrived.
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
Nope, you got it wrong. I said they took our culture, while bossing around and saying "we invented this, not you". They are putting Greek stamp on everything.
-MrAnderson@reddit
Dude, don't you feel proud of e.g. the beautiful Aegean shores or Istanbul? What is Istanbul, if not a Roman city, the loss of which had such an impact for Greeks it has been embedded in folk literature, poems, music, etc for centuries, up until this day? One could claim you are just proud of violently stealing a place that belonged to someone else.
So, let's say zeibekiko is 'stolen' from its Turksih zeybek counterpart. So what? Why are Turks entitled to being proud of their 'version' of a byzantine city that has been the center of the Greek world for thousands of years, while not Greeks of being proud of their 'version' of a culinary dish or a dance that probably (though not in all cases) has been a part Turkish culinary / music culture?
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
Again, again and again. I have no problem getting something from other cultures. ctrl + v:
That's the thing I hate here.
Greeks didn't create the shores.
Istanbul was an empty and poor city. It was sacked in 1204. They could hardly pay the soldier fees. By selling relics, etc. It was a shadow of its former self.
Again, I have no problem Greeks making culture contact with Turks. What I hate is, they refuse the Turkish influence.
An example: "Turkish Folk Music" has Byzantine roots. But I don't refuse the Greek influence. However, Greeks do exactly that, on everything related with Turkish culture. Be it coffee, lokum, baklava, meals, etc.
No relation with the subject. Also, I didn't say it wasn't Roman before.
The things present in today's culture are mostly modern, around after 1700's. There wasn't a Byzantine state at that time and no dominant Greek culture in the state, as their influence was small compared with the gigantic mass of the state. Lokum for example was invented in 1800's by the palace candy maker. Coffee came from Yemen, however the coffee making method came from Turks. Yemeni's sold the coffee and consumed the residue, didn't make the coffee themselves.
Dances, most meals too was influenced by the Turks.
Childish discourse. Say that to the Alexander. When you do it you are a hero. When enemy does it they are the villain. Typical Greek view, I'm accustomed to that.
I take this as yes.
A city is not stolen, it is conquered, by blood. We paid it by our blood.
After the conquest, the city was rebuilt and the population boomed. We developed it for hundreds of years, and the old city not even contains 1/10 mass of today's current state. Maybe 1/20 .
-MrAnderson@reddit
Well, I think most Greeks see perfectly clear how much of a Turkish influence all these things have; they often have Turkish names after all.
As to the Greek vs Turkish conquests comparison, I'm tired of this argument being parroted again and again: Alexander's and Greek world's influence in general wasn't mainly by sword. After all, Greeks eventually lost to Romans, and yet ended up with a l hellenized roman Empire.
Just see how many modern nation-states borrow symbols or claim Roman (as in "ERE") heritage, Greece included. This cannot be achieved violently, and it's evident by the lack of this happening for their Ottoman heritage.
Btw, I don't deny the deep impact Ottomans had on their subjects. It's just that Turks today emphasize their impact on others, how much of an impact the past residents of their lands had on them.
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
Learn the Alexander's campaigns. You don't even know your own history. For example, he razed Thebes, which is a Greek city. Most of the holdings he got was by sword, except the inherited lands by Philip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thebes
The difference with Byzantine and Ottoman conquers was the time frame. Ottomans conquered too much land in a small time window, so they had to allow the local cultures autonomy. Lands in 1300 was 1.500 m2, and by 1520 it increased to 3.400.000 km2. It increased 2.266 times comparing with independence, in just 220 years. Religious differences was bigger too: Islam and Christianity. Therefore it was harder to assimilate.
Byzantines had much more time to assimilate the locals and they didn't have much religious difference: Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Armenian Church, or pagans. So it was easier to assimilate. But even with that, Byzantines used violence and displaced Armenians from their homes and relocated them throughout to all empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_in_the_Byzantine_Empire
Byzantines used coercion to convert the Armenian Church:
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/1059
Emperor Maurice's speech to Persian counterpart shows the racist view towards the Armenians:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskCaucasus/comments/1776puh/why_do_so_many_armenians_adore_the_byzantines/
It's natural that a state that has a mass that's close to earlier Roman Empire has a bigger impact on minorities than minorities' impact on itself. Whose state ceased to exist 600 years ago. C
-MrAnderson@reddit
For every source you recite, there are 10 sources referring to Turkish atrocities. You are trying to make a case against something I never claimed. In fact, I would say Ottomans were actually quite lenient with their subjects, all things considered.
Greeks and Romans, and later Roman / Greeks, did do atrocities. Despite them, their subjects in general related to Romaness in a way Ottomans never succeeded to. This has nothing to do with time, or skill in assimilating; that is just taught in modern Turkish school textbooks, and nowhere else in the world, in an attempt to present the recent ethnic cleansings as "yet another" cleansing of the area.
Being an Ottoman citizen simply didn't give enough rights or prestige the way being a Roman citizen did.
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
A state wants its citizens to be obedient. Best way to do that is having citizens that have the same religion and culture with the state. Ottomans couldn't do that, because their half of the population was non-Muslim in 1300's. If they coerced the state religion or culture, half the population would revolt. That's why they applied a tolerant system. Despite being nomadic, they were wise. They applied the Persian Empire knowledge upon the problem, which was one of the most potent empire building systems .
They did it both. They both allowed the multiculturalism, and the did coercion, but it was selectively applied to the degree that lead to no revolts. Also a permanent "if you convert to Islam you get these bonuses", etc.
So, like I said, they tried to, but the time frame was limited.
I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject, but I think this depends on era. between 1500-1650, I assume it was quite prestigious to be an Ottoman citizen, as it was the most powerful empire in the world, I think.
-MrAnderson@reddit
If it was, the end result would be different. Ottoman empire was powerful, even lenient regarding religion, but it didn't offer much to the masses compared to being rules by the Romans (across several centuries this varied of course).
At least this is a common explanation, as there is debate regarding the reasons. You might have seen the relevant Monty Python bit.
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
Where did you get this info, if you are so sure? I think you are saying this based on your sentiments.
There was enough waterways, bridges, public places and religious autonomy and legal entity of the Churches and their jurisdiction. What else could be done in your opinion?
-MrAnderson@reddit
Nothing, I'm not even blaming Ottomans for anything. I believe an empire at this position was destined to fall, even if the Byzantines had never declined or been conquered.
They inherited a feudal system from the Romans, implemented it even better compared to the ghastly situation of the late Byzantine empire. But Renaissance was happening in Europe, and technology and science were booming; the strategic position which allowed trade control for Constantinople between Asia and Europe was never going to be as important as before, with the new routes and the new world being discovered.
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
Conquering enlightened parts of Europe (western parts) fastened the enlightenment. For example, first cannons and printing press came from Hungarians. If Italy could be conquered, it would be in a much better state.
-MrAnderson@reddit
But these "enlightened parts" weren't always in light; the enlightenment happened as a result of centuries-worth of social and religious shifts/progress. If Italy was under Ottoman rule, it would just be another Greece case.
NorthWelcome1626@reddit
Think of it like Industrial Revolution in Britain and its periphery. In England it was in 1760, in Netherlands in 1770, to France in 1780, etc. If you are close, you embrace the innovations earlier.
By conquering the more developed parts in Europe, Ottomans would get the innovations much earlier, as there would be more interactions between people.
Berserk-Jane@reddit
That Cedar of Lebanon in the background is a Turkish native. We have a grove of them right here outside of Philadelphia.
Prod_Meteor@reddit
When are we going to finally progress to this century people? Blue and red.
Final-Nebula-7049@reddit
when we form the aegean federation
lotzik@reddit
Why not form the Anatolia federation first
Final-Nebula-7049@reddit
That's not culturally viable, gotta stick with what works.
lotzik@reddit
Why not? We have the same dance. So, we will have Greek culture around Constantinople and all the western shores of Anatolia, and from Ankara and to the East the culture can stay mostly Turkish with kebap etc. We will see how this works for a few years, and if it doesn't then fine, we will just draw a new border near Ankara, call it a day.
Waiting for your thoughts.
Final-Nebula-7049@reddit
No I mean unified Anatolia is far harder than unified Aegean. I think coastal Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus could easily unite
lotzik@reddit
Great! I'll go tell Mitsotakis the news of this agreement. You can go tell Erdogan.
Final-Nebula-7049@reddit
We're going to balcony Erdoğan soon, so we're good
funstufffff@reddit
Omg! Another common thing for people who lived under the same empire for 5-600 years in the very same immediate land!
Another note, there are no Zeybek tales during Ottomans, %90 are during WW1 or during war of independence of Turkey. So other than the name, nothing is similar.
The name isn't even recognised as Turkish %100, it is probably used by both us and Greeks at the time, so it's neither Greek or Turkish but it's "Aegean" or from "Aegean Anatolia" because it was never mentioned before anywhere else in history books.
shortEverything_@reddit
This sub:
Turkish version of same thing ⬇️
Greek version of same thing ⬆️
atamehmet@reddit
nobody1568@reddit
None in these 3 threads have demonstrate having either historical or musical knowledge to share anything of substance regarding these dances. Everything is just hearsay and vibes.
CHNSK@reddit
What is the origin, turkish or greek?
hubbabubbameqershi@reddit
Who gives a shit anyways? Aren't you all tired with all of this what belongs to who mindset? Enjoy your own things.
CHNSK@reddit
I have no such mindset. I was just curious about its genesis.
hubbabubbameqershi@reddit
Culture and traditions don't belong to a certain population, it's centuries of evolution and every group of people puts a brick in the wall. The 2 men dance has its genesis in Asia, but the Greek and Turkish are different if you know what I mean, doesn't make this dance greek or Turkish. Europeans have circular hand by hand dances which have their origins in very early fire dances not really exclusive of European but have developed independently from each other.
Central Albania has a 2 person dance calle Napololoni dance, pretty traditional in all Albanian wedding nowadays. Doesn't make that dance Turkish of Greek.
CHNSK@reddit
Well, thank you for the unnecessary definition and lecture about culture. It has nothing to do with what I asked.
harryweins@reddit
Well, you certainly need many more lectures if this is your answer. Patience to all those around you.
nobody1568@reddit
The origin of what?
CHNSK@reddit
The dance I mean, what else?
nobody1568@reddit
Which one, two different dances are mentioned.
CHNSK@reddit
Different? Even the name is same.
nobody1568@reddit
Feel free to demonstrate that they are the same dance. All you have to do is present musical and choreographic evidence that they are the same dance.
CHNSK@reddit
Then it must be an incredible coincidence they have the same name and look the same.
nobody1568@reddit
If they do, it must be very easy for you to demonstrate it through basic musical and choreographic analysis of two traditionally accepted examples of each dance. I'm certainly waiting eagerly for someone to go past the hearsay and vibes of the "they have the same name", "they look the same".
CHNSK@reddit
So they are totally different as in how cacik and tzatziki are different? Or Gyros and doner?
Because that definitely requires some deep “musical and choreographic analysis” and study. One for scientists and philosophers!
nobody1568@reddit
Indeed for someone who knows it must be simple to go past the vibes and give a brief demonstration. Still waiting for you to walk the talk.
CHNSK@reddit
Evidence of your eyes and ears is not brief enough, lol. Don’t try to muddy the waters with ‘analyses’ or studies buddy.
Taliskerhu@reddit
Seriously love me some Turkish tai chi
Adistaktos34@reddit
Different music... And a different style of dance. The Greek zeibekiko has a sad vibe.
Zealousideal_Cry_460@reddit
Just to clarify, due to nomadic migrational routes there have been Zeybeks in the more central parts of anatolia as well, especially the black sea region.
İts just that they didnt have much of an active role or rose to importance since theres no immediate enemy at the black sea.
Nomadic Turks have preferred coastal regions because it usually has more green fields, more water and forests, both of which are gravely important for nomads. And the coastal regions are often in front of high mountains which scrape the clouds and thus create rivers that flow back to the sea most of the time.
So its not just a western anatolian thing