1Early Republican Turkey is broadly accepted as a significant turning point in Ottoman-Turkish history. This assumption is attributed to the secular-growth of a bureaucratic state and, thus this period is either idealized as an “object of desire” or negated as an “original sin” or even a blasphemy. However, its complex and contradictory nature has not been yet analysed.

2Starting with prohibitions, limitations and prescriptions, by giving epistemological and ontological priority to religious or secular but formal norms and judgments, may prevent us from understanding the multidimensional formation of drinking practices. This article defines drinking alcohol as a social practice that has taken shape throughout history and will reveal it as it was experienced (Lefebvre, 1991: 11-13, 18; Georgeon, 2002). Only “lived experience” can give us an accurate picture of various norms within diverse representations.

3Although Islamic jurisprudence prohibits Muslims from consuming any intoxicants and condemns them as the handiwork of Satan, namely as khamr, based upon the surahs of Quran (e.g. Al-Ma’idah 5/90, Al-Baqarah 2/219), as early as in the Ottoman Empire, in which shariʿa was one of the main sources of law, as fetva collections and court records demonstrate, law in effect (kanun) at the time had been diverging from Islamic law (fiqh) in cases of regulation, prohibition and punishment (Gerber, 2015; Hattox, 1996: 46-57). This is an indicator that shows us how formal norms are forged through judicial and political authorities, based on sociological and historical reality. Various historical events in a society may challenge the relationship between “norm” and “reality”, releasing different notions of value, and hence, virtues and sins (Avon & Pelletier: 2016; Avon: 2011).

5Since it is the most obvious setting for the expression of this period of transition, including the provincial experience of drinking and the space of political-bureaucratic and economic transformation, Ankara, the new capital of the Republic, will be the subject of this article. The article will focus on the transformation of socio-spatial practices of an Anatolian city turned into a capital, in terms of drinking places, from the late 19th to early 20th century.

6In urban studies literature, Ankara is seen as an “invented city” created out of an ancient small town predominated by Sunnites (Cantek, 2020: 41-45). It is recognised as a laboratory of the Republic, and hence all spaces and spatial practices are seen as “conceived” by the republican bureaucrats, including drinking places. With reference to the dichotomies of bureaucratic-civil, secular-religious, strangers-natives, Ankara Palas (Ankara Palace) is thought to be the new Turkey’s “representation of space”, and the drinking of alcohol that took place there is viewed as the dominant form of drinking in the new Turkey (Lefebvre, 1991: 38-39). However, as Henri Lefebvre (1991: 38-43) suggests, instead of taking only the “conceived” for granted, we should consider all three moments of space simultaneously, as how it is “perceived”, “conceived”, and “lived.” In this way, by passing beyond idealist and structuralist dualities, we can view drinking places as part of people’s everyday lives beside the “conceived”, and how people experienced the “conceived” through complex social relations, as well. This perspective will enable us to explain how diverse formal and social norms were integrated through people’s lived experience throughout history, and accordingly, how the public sphere was (re)produced through drinking places, and in turn, drinking places in the public sphere. It will reveal the symbolic representations of drinking practices in the public sphere.

Drinking places appeared during the socio-spatial formation of Ankara as a province

7In the discourse of the founders of the Turkish Republic, we encounter an image of a barren, primitive small town deprived of all the basic features of a city as a reflection of 1920s’ Ankara. Some counted the lack of leisure facilities in the first place (Atay, 2004: 549). However hegemonic this image is, Ankara was an ordinary but big, important and multiconfessional Anatolian city enjoyed a rich adjacent rural area (Ergenç, 1995: 54, 62; Tekeli, 2011: 269-271). Society’s relationship to the space in everyday life was taking shape around this rural production and reproduction (Lefebvre, 1991: 33, 38). Accordingly their “spatial practice” of drinking, namely their “perceived space” of drinking, crystallised through that rural reality.

8Vineyards surrounding the city and vineyard houses were at the centre of this drinking practice. Christians (Armenians and Greeks) carried on growing vines, exporting and drinking (Ribeiro et al., 2020: 218, 221-227). Besides, Muslims fermented or slightly fermented vines while producing vinegar or grape must (şıra), even though it was forbidden by the Hanafi fiqh (Çelik, 2014: 52-53; Karahanoğulları, 2008: 111; Hattox: 44-45; Günel, 2005: 52). In the 19th century, as the immediate surroundings were tightly attached with the horse carts to the district of Ankara, vineyard houses (köşk) became leisure spaces as country houses from summer until mid-October and “perceived” drinking places for rich city dwellers (Christians and Muslims) (Tunçer, 2014: 23; Tekeli, 1978: 246; Ribeiro et al., 2020: 231, 235). By virtue of the isolation provided by the position and structure of vineyard houses, diverse communities could live side by side but with minimal contact and thus drink alcohol while entertaining within the family or with the neighbouring families but always in the privacy of their homes and neighbourhoods (Özkan, 2014: 105; Günel, 2005: 54, 56-57).

9With the permanent settlement of merchants at the outskirts of the Citadel, the city centre took its authentic form along a linear-shaped commercial centre in which an urban social life developed. (Tekeli, 1978: 16-17; Ergenç, 1995: 54-55, 62; Tunçer, 2014). It started from the quartier Yukarı Yüz and led to the quartier Aşağı Yüz, through a long marketplace, Uzunçarşı. The formation of this centre stimulated the growth of the city down the Citadel, organised through neighbourhoods. As artisanal and commercial activities were not separate from reproduction, the neighbourhood, which was homogenously integrated community, became the main setting for spatial practices (Ergenç, 1995: 145-150).

10Drinking habits might have been influenced by ethnic and religious diversity of neighbourhoods alongside religious convictions, familial and folkloric customs, ceremonial habits, and personal inclinations (Georgeon, 2021: 226; Bal, 2011: 172-173; Elias, 2016: 244; Aydın et al., 2005: 283). In the residential area, alcohol was mainly consumed at private places, as in vineyards (Etöz, 1998: 167-169). At the mansions (konak) of Muslim notables of the city (eşrâf), it was usually served upon invitation in a room permanently or occasionally reserved to men. When alcohol was used in a communal place, it was thought of as part of a ceremony. It was seen as part of a religious ritual in the dervish lodges (tekke), situated far away from the city centre (Şapolyo, 1967: 144-146). Consumption of alcohol was also accepted during weddings and a soldier’s farewell ceremony (Aydın et al., 2005: 283, 286). These kinds of special occasions featured a portable drinking dish, accompanied by itinerant Christian incesaz music groups. What all of these places had in common is privacy and portable place settings. Beside private places, in the city centre, there were coffee houses, in which spontaneous wine-gatherings (şarap meclisi) sometimes took place; boza houses (bozahane), in which a kind of alcohol-free or low-alcohol beverage, boza, and wine were sold; and taverns (meyhane), predominantly for non-Muslims (Ergenç, 1995: 70, 115-116, 152, 157, 223; Hattox, 1996: 6, 57-60; Aydın et al., 291-292; İgüs, 2016: 103-104; Georgeon, 2021: 226). These drinking places remained marginal and degraded, and that drinking alcohol outside was perceived as clandestine for Muslim men and discreet for non-Muslims.

11They were “representational spaces” as “obscene area … [that] has its own hidden space on the near or the far side of [the] frontier” (Lefebvre, 1991: 36, 34). However, as seen in the case of seymens, the inheritors of Turkish tribal-based Seljukian military rank organised as a paramilitary group under the influence of guilds and represented among the notables, they were integrated into the city’s lived experience (Karaveli, 2011: 16-18; Aydın et al., 2005: 282-283; Özalp, 2016: 333-334). They had their own drinking rituals with the accompaniment of saz, folkloric songs and dances. They made women dance to their tunes. These entertainments (âlem) could be organized in private and communal places and on various occasions.

Ankara at the turn of 1920s: the city of vanished joy

12Under devastating economic, political and social conditions, along with the reforms of centralization as well as the provincial regulations, the new Ankara is “conceived” for the first time in the 19th century (Tunçer, 2014; Dedekargınoğlu, 2019a: 60-76). As Hükümet Square (Governor’s Square) was constructed in the ancient quarter Aşağı Yüz, a new but for the first time a governmental city centre emerged in the plain detached from the Citadel and the traditional commercial city centre in its vicinity, Yukarı Yüz. This new centre was joined to the new Train Station via İstasyon Avenue. By the time the avenue expanded, it embraced Taşhan (Hotel d’Angora) and Taşhan Square, which was bifurcated into two roads, Karaoğlan (future Anafartalar) Avenue and Kızılbey Avenue (renamed Mekteb-i Sanayi Avenue, future Atatürk Boulevard), producing a gradual shift from the ancient administrative and commercial centre towards the new one.

13After a while, new coffee houses, café-chantants (kafeşantan), bars and gazinos (a large refreshment bar like a music hall), appeared in this direction (Aydın et al., 2005: 257, 269, 292-293). Greek Iraklis opened the future famous Kuyulu Coffee House at that epoch (Özalp, 2016: 334). At the beginning of the 20th century, a recreation area called Nation Garden (Millet Bahçesi) was laid out at Taşhan Square (Dedekargınoğlu, 2019b: 361). Ahmed Fehim, who had recently come to the city in the days of the Train Station construction, initiated an improvisational theatre (tulûat) with a gazino inside the garden. Hungarians who came to the city to build; soldiers and civil servants, living in exile; but also the so-called bandits, specifically seymens, frequented this gazino (Aydın et al., 2005: 307-308). Revelries were organized there with the performance of an orchestra. These first drinking places seem to have come into being as “lived” spaces within the new boundaries of the “conceived”.

14This transformation, however, does not refer to a smooth development process but to a multifaceted and challenging phase of change along with the Empire, which was rather materialised at the expense of the old city and its inhabitants. After the fires of 1881 and 1916 devastated the old commercial centre (Yukarı Yüz) and quarter(s) densely populated by Christians, especially by Armenians, the direction of urban land expansion in favour of this new core of the city centre became evident (Günel and Kılcı, 2015: 84, 91; Etöz and Esin, 2012: 16-19, 26-41). In accordance with the planning and construction of the new axis, in which government officials, members of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) and Muslim notables were engaged, the conflagration area (Harik Mahalli) was abandoned to dereliction and residential-business properties classified as “abandoned” were transferred to Muslim notables, local inhabitants, government officials and immigrants (Gülenç İğdi, 2013: 233-245; Onaran, 2013-I: 357-358, 361, 362, 2013-II: 402-437). In contrast, the new commercial axis through Karaoğlan Avenue was dominated by Muslim artisans and tradesmen, and the political character of the centre was fostered by the establishment of the Union and Progress Clubhouse (future first Grand National Assembly) (Dedekargınoğlu, 2019a: 181).

15Since Ankara was a community-based province, this first creative destruction implied a sharp break in the organisation of social life throughout the province. Suppression of certain neighbourhoods and surrounding areas seemed to provoke a destruction of certain drinking habits and attitudes. Evidently, most of the vineyards were left by the Armenians and the Greeks, and some were usurped by force or by law (Onaran, 2013-I: 353-390). Certain neighbourhoods or surrounding towns and villages were erased, such as Aşağı Eğlence and Yukarı Eğlence in Etlik, which took their names from the entertainment performed by their Greek inhabitants with ouds, violins and piano accompaniment (Özkan, 2014: 104). Ahmed Fehim closed his theatre-gazino and left the city because of this new atmosphere ravaged by fires, deportations and massacres (Aydın et al., 2005: 293).

16By that process, Ankara, as well as the whole of the country, entered a new era, in which those who seized the properties of non-Muslims started to dominate economic and social life. A prevailing political agenda, rested upon the contraposition against non-Muslims under restrictive socio-economic conditions, came to the fore in terms of Turkification and Islamification (Keyder, 2009: 74-92). The Prohibition Law of Alcoholic Beverages (Men-i Müskirat Kanunu), adopted on 14 September 1920 by the first Grand National Assembly, materialised this political stance in a state of war (Karahanoğulları, 2008). It was principally advocated by a conservative fraction in the Assembly but reflected a wider social and political coalition.

“Lived” drinking places within the new axis of Ankara

17After the National Assembly convened in the old Union and Progress Clubhouse, the new axis turned into a centre of attraction for newcomers, including deputies, bureaucrats, civil servants, soldiers, notables, landowners, clergymen, tradesmen, professionals, teachers, journalists, writers, and poets. Alongside the local notables, artisans and tradesmen, they formed new diverse social layers. Tension built up between these newcomers, labelled “strangers” and the local inhabitants (Karaosmanoğlu, 2009: 31; Tekeli, 2011: 273). This tension arose not only from cultural differences, but above all, hinged on the question of their domain in the city. Whereas the newcomers, who had governed the country from İstanbul or played an important role in those political circles, aspired that time to govern the country from Ankara, and hence started to build themselves a larger governmental area, the propertied classes of the city continued to play an important role in the development of the city (Tekeli, 2011: 273, 275-276).

18This epoch’s public spaces and drinking places took form on this contradictorily but collectively structured and evolving axis. Taşhan Square was renamed by the Assembly as Hakimiyet-i Milliye Square (National Sovereignty) and accentuated as a central public open space (Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2019: 39-40). On the contrary, Karaoğlan Avenue and Tahtakale continued their influence. A “lived” drinking experience came out on this axis despite the Prohibition Law, imposed restrictions on production, sale and consumption. Ironically, the main alcoholic beverage, raki, was illegally produced and carried from Keskin by the Chief of Police, Dilaver Bey (Atay, 2004: 560; Georgeon, 2021: 226).

19The “new” emerged within the “old”. Old coffee house, Kuyulu Coffee House situated near Zincirli Mosque up to Taşhan became famous (Yüksel, 2013: 98-99; Tonga, 2014: 195, 198; Özalp, 2016: 334-335; Önder, 2013: 43, 45). It changed proprietor and Dayko, the brother of deputy Eyüp Sabri, became the new owner. He was the main distributer of alcohol and served alcohol clandestinely there, with a gramophone playing in the background. It started to be frequented mainly by newcomers, mostly gentlemen – deputies, poets, writers and journalists. Their political stances and opinions on alcohol varied. The famous conservative poet and deputy Mehmet Âkif and communist poet Nazım Hikmet regularly frequented Kuyulu. Nazım Hikmet cited “Kuyulu Kahve” in his famous poem, Kuvayı Milliye Destanı.

20Most of the old restaurants of the Ottoman era had been closed down, but a few, concentrated on Karaoğlan Avenue and nearby the National Assembly-Hükümet Square region, remained (Özalp, 2016: 403-404). As mentioned in the memories of Falih Rıfkı (2004: 382-384) they rather looked like “cook shops” and just one step further from the street peddlers of meatballs. However, they were filled up on demand by newcomers staying at nearby hotels or rooms, and for lobbying activities and receptions generated by the National Assembly. Anadolu or Kemal’s Restaurant, opened in 1920 just across Taşhan near the National Assembly, having a reserved place for drinking (Tonga, 2014: 197; Karahanoğulları, 2008: 144). Frequently deputies and writers who stayed in Taşhan, such as Falih Rıfkı (Atay) and Yakup Kadri (Karaosmanoğlu) visited this place. When journalist Ahmet Emin (Yalman) escaped from Malta, a feast was organized there in his honour. It was also used as a venue for diplomatic dinner invitations of Foreign Minister, Yusuf Kemal (Tengirşenk) (Önder, 2013: 47). Teceddüd Restaurant on Karaoğlan Avenue also served alcohol; however, it looked more small-scale and traditional with its local character of musical restaurant/tavern (çalgılı meyhane), having oriental suite (fasıl) performed with saz accompaniment (Tonga, 2014: 197; Özalp, 2016: 390-391; Önder, 2013: 54). More modest writers, journalists and civil servants frequented this place. More interestingly, we find out the traces of a new stylish drinking place on Mekteb-i Sanayi Avenue (Ayhan Koçyigit, 2019: 38; Gülekli and Onaran, 1973: 169). This was semi-restaurant Fresko’s Bar, which “pioneered the ‘bar’ type of leisure spaces in the city”, with an accompaniment of a “music band” within the Nation Garden (Önder, 2013: 45). Jül Fresko was said to have come from İstanbul to do business in Ankara (Tanyer, 2017: 504).

21Far from the Square, in Tahtakale, there were taverns frequented late at night after coffee houses or restaurants closed (Şapolyo, 1967: 144-146). One of them was called “küllük” (astray) of Efe Haydar, looking like a wretched Dervish lodge. There, visitors had to knock on the door three times as part of a Bektashi tradition in order to be welcomed. Alcohol was drunk in coffee cups while standing and without any side dish. Another tavern, Babo, was run by Bayram Fehmi (Önder, 2013: 44). Raki was drunk in glass shots while sitting on cane-chairs, along with sautéed liver. Şapolyo (1967) defined these taverns as obscure places and we understand from his words that he and Aka Gündüz felt like outsiders. However, the more these places seemed unfamiliar to them, the more they were seen as familiar to their regular clientele. Moreover, these places were not unique but shared the same style of drinking and entertainment with various institutions spread around Bend Deresi, Hamamönü, Hacıbayram and future Çankırı Road (Özalp, 2016: 426-427; Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2019: 45; Erdoğan, 2018: 71, 89-91; Aydın et al., 2005: 282-286, 293, 420-422). They represented the “perceived” drinking places of local inhabitants, forged in seymen culture. As this culture was rooted in a wide range of activities and social layers, from weddings to banditry, the men who frequented these places were comprised of different types of drinkers: bandits, unemployed bohemians, but also some local notables.

22Even though the prevailing attitude was still drinking at private places implicitly, either in home or in vineyard (Atay, 2004: 383; Karaosmanoğlu, 2009: 35-38), the change in drinking space had already occurred during the war years. This change concealed the multiconfessional nature of the recent past and the “conceived” character of the new city centre in which the new drinking places took place. This new drinking space appeared to newcomers delipidated and traditional because in the collective memory, no traces remained since the groups who could have remembered that rupture were no longer in the city, and “tradition [and traditional] were to hinder its evolution” on behalf of the “restricted [Muslim] groups” of the new axis (Halbwachs, 1980: 74, 82). On the other hand, a city description based on deprivations would enable another new “conceived” space. In this sense, the infamous table of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), the President of the Grand National Assembly and head of the army, started to be idealized in the name of “Çankaya Sofrası” as the only reachable modern drinking place. The mansion (köşk) of Mustafa Kemal, his private place, appeared as a semi-public space in transition around which he negotiated political issues with his distinguished guests while drinking (Atay, 2004: 450-451, 546, 551, 553).

23There were lots of sober public places dominating the city centre. As reflected the heterogeneity of the newcomers, Tâceddin Dervish Convent in Hamamönü, on the opposite side of the outskirts of the Citadel, became a meeting place for the more conservative deputies, especially after the arrival of poet and deputy Mehmet Âkif (Ersoy), important figure of the religious anti-alcoholic movement (Tonga, 2014: 191-194; Georgeon, 2021: 200-204, 216-217). All the other open public spaces apparently remained abstinent. As situated at an intersection of İstasyon, Karaoğlan and Mekteb-i Sanayi Avenues, looking at Taşhan Square and the Assembly, sobriety in the open spaces of the Nation Garden during the day was symbolic (Özalp, 2016: 410). Garden was conceived for wide public use, including for women and children, and it abstained from alcohol. This sobriety was identic in the other open spaces, such as fields (mesire) in Mamak, Kayaş and Hatip Stream, usually frequented for picnics (Cantek, 2020: 242). However, incesaz reflected in some photos.

“Conceived” Drinking places at the nexus of new Ankara

24In the climate of the declaration of the Republic (1923), following the enactment of the Capital City Law (1923) and the establishment of the Municipality of Ankara (1924), a third new era began. The tension between the newcomers and the old propertied classes of the city rose to the level of who would own and govern the city. By excluding the property taxpayers from the Municipality Council and delegating all the financial and administrative power to the Minister of Interior and the Mayor, new social groups formed around the new government became hegemonic in determining the next axes of the city to the detriment of some of the old propertied classes, except for those who took position beside the government (Tekeli, 2011: 271, 273-276; Karaveli, 2011: 13-14, 16, 27, 37-38; Aydın et al., 2005: 379-380). The Lörcher Plan sketched out the new urban plan, establishing the framework of the future axes of the city out of the range of the old city. This plan enhanced the gradual development of the Square under its new name Millet Square as the new city centre and Mekteb-i Sanayi Avenue (future Banks Avenue) in the direction of Yenişehir (future Kızılay) (Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2019: 41-44). Furthermore, the capital city decision generated an unprecedented demographic growth, giving way to a more multi-layered city with growing needs (Aydın et al., 2005: 438-441). In 1927, the urban population would be 74,000 by tripling the population of 1923 and in 1935, 122,000 – five times this population.

25In parallel, the Prohibition Law was abolished on April 9th, 1924 and the government initiated certain secular reforms (Karahanoğulları, 2008: 141-158; Georgeon, 2021: 238). These two events changed the frame of reference of drinking alcohol within a political sphere. No reference to the religious law was required anymore in public spaces, but to secular regulations. The government regulated immediately the field of alcoholic beverages in order to avoid a casus omissus. The production and sale in public places were first allowed with a licence, and then the Turkish State Liquor and Tobacco Monopoly was established to produce and sell alcoholic beverages (Karahanoğulları, 2008: 148-160).

26Consequently, all three moments of drinking space – “perceived”, “conceived” and “lived” – started to change. This was initially a change that brought about a new “perceived space” of drinking, disturbing the balance between urban and rural realities; and hence drinking habits mainly based on rural reality. Old inhabitants partially continued to live the same as before, preserving their routines to spend time in vineyards and fields (Öymen, 2002: 139-140). On the other side, as people started to work in increasing amounts within the range of the governmental area, they spent more and more time outside in urban areas (Karaosmanoğlu, 2009: 32-33). This created an increase in drinking places in the city centre.

27In addition, the urbanisation as a capital city far from İstanbul would condition the framework of the “conceived” and the “lived”. In parallel with the development of Millet Square, the first “conceived” drinking places were established there. They were always narrated as the places that could realize the potential of Ankara vis-à-vis İstanbul in leisure activities and entertainment, as well as show the modern face of the Republic to the whole country. However, they were still relatively small and private enterprises. In this respect, Fresko’s Restaurant-Bar was the first place announced by Falih Rıfkı (1923) to be reopened after the refurbishment. It was situated near Nation Garden on Mekteb-i Sanayi Avenue (Tanyer, 2017: 505; Önder, 2013: 86). Deputies, bureaucrats, military officers, foreign country representatives, journalists and writers frequented this place. Businessmen came to do some business with foreigners or to get a commission. There the old Imperial Palace Orchestra played under Ekrem Zeki (Üngör), and dances such as foxtrot were performed (Özalp, 2016: 404-405; Cantek, 2020: 264). Official receptions, even the first Republic Day Ball (1925), were organized there. However, the bar earned its real reputation with beautiful Hungarian hostesses (konsomatris). If we consider that one of the well-known figures of the era, Falih Rıfkı, had an affair with a hostess that cost him his marriage (Tanyer, 2017: 503), entertaining with these hostesses was not marginal, at least within some circles. Considering this amorphous nature of the enterprise and of the entertainment style, we can infer that the “conceived” was still neither well-structured nor planned and designed but rather shaped by individual tastes.

28The main axes of drinking places, on the contrary, emerged through a lived experience. As in the Ottoman era, some restaurants located on Karaoğlan Avenue operated as restaurants during the day before becoming a gazino in the evening (Özalp, 2016: 403-404). Zevk Restaurant opened, replacing Teceddüd in 1923. It was well-liked for its pot dish and frequented particularly by Vehbi Koç, future founder of Koç Holding (Tanyer, 2016: 241-242; Özalp, 2016: 390). Just down the street, opposite Taşhan, İstanbul Patisserie, the first patisserie of Ankara, opened in the same year under a hotel constructed after old buildings were demolished by the Municipality (Özalp, 2016: 353-354). It was known as a “club of intellectuals”, where they could also have a drink in addition to tea and coffee (Aydın et al., 2005: 397).

29Next to all of these modern-looking places, we discover an “obscene area” (Lefebvre, 1991: 36). Çankırı Road, a “street of bars” (oriental night clubs), was seen in front. Previously, jerry-built drinking and gambling places existed, where peddlers (mıngacı) sold meatballs (Özalp, 2016: 388-389; Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2019: 45; Tunçer, 2014: 31-32). When the road was extended, bar-type entertainment places opened: Elhamra Bar, Tabarin Bar, Yeni Bar, Nil Bar et al. After a while, even Fresko’s Bar was moved to this road. These were not European-style bars; rather, they were primitive forms of French-style pavilions (pavyon) and modified forms of traditional entertainments (oturak âlemi, koltuk meyhanesi), where hostesses (konsomatris) worked. Özalp (2016: 425-427) counted new riches, bandits, spendthrifts, young playboys, men coming from Central Anatolia and married men searching for an affair or pleasure among their regular clientele. This is possibly why these places were stigmatised as the places frequented by the men who did not have a drinking etiquette or as proper places for idealist men (Aydın et al., 2005: 425).

30In addition, the transformation of the mansion of the President from a private residence to a semi-public residence was completed during this period (Cantek, 2020: 135-142). In this semi-public residence, drinking alcohol, especially raki, had a special place. As Atay (2004: 553-555) recounts, the table of Mustafa Kemal was both a roundtable for making serious decisions as well as a drinking table where he entertained with his guests. There, a specific manner of drinking and special rules of protocol developed, for the first time in a semi-public space. In this case, even the “conceived” was formed through a “lived” experience and marked mainly by Mustafa Kemal’s personality and his drinking attitudes as well as by his political stance.

Did “Conceived” Overwhelm the “Perceived” and the “Lived”?

31Socio-spatial reformation of Ankara took a far-reaching turn in 1927 (Tekeli, 2011: 277-281). Correlated with the circumstances across the country, discussions on the issue of political regime and capital city related to İstanbul ended, stimulating a decisive planning process. The Jansen Plan detailed and fostered the urban development direction. The focus was accentuated on the publicly owned treasury lands in the surrounding area, which had been already expropriated mainly by the regulations of “abandoned properties” (Onaran, 2013-II: 402-404, 478). The main artery, future Atatürk Boulevard, starting from Millet Square (Ulus Square, 1932) and leading all along the buildings of banks, ministers and the other official institutions to the new city, till the new Assembly, became apparent (Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2019: 49).

32According to the plan, the Municipality redeveloped Millet Square and the buildings that surround it. Following this redevelopment, first Taşhan was renovated and on the ground floor, a new restaurant, Karpiç, was opened in 1928 by Juri Georges Karpovitch, an exile from Russia (Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2019: 44; Özalp, 2016: 392-393; Aydın et al., 2005: 400). Karpiç would be the symbol of the new era’s “conceived” eating and drinking culture of deputies, high bureaucrats, foreign country representatives and upper classes, and classified as a “luxury restaurant” by the Municipality. With white tablecloths, serviettes, cutlery, menu and orchestra, it had a modern (asrî) image which gave pleasure to its visitors as mentioned in the memoirs (Aydın et al., 2005: 417-418). In a while, it would move to Municipal Shopping Centre (Belediye or Şehir Çarşısı) within the new City Garden (Şehir Bahçesi) in place of Fresko’s Restaurant-Bar (Dedekargınoğlu, 2019b: 365-366). It was the first restaurant where men and women could eat and drink together (Ayhan Koçyiğit, 2019: 44). Many receptions and balls were organized there (Özalp, 2016: 392-393; Aydın et al., 2005: 417). Mainly raki and vodka were served. Karpiç, the owner, walked around the tables with his glass in hand and proposed a toast to his guests. Whereas it was a private enterprise, it was subsidized by İşbank as if it was a “state restaurant”. Furthermore, as seen in Karpiç, we see the return of non-Muslims to the city life through the entertainment places with the growth of the service sector, mostly as servants (Bal, 2011: 164-176).

33Ankara Palas was also opened in 1928 across the National Assembly as a hotel and restaurant, hosting famous balls, especially the Republic Day Balls (Cantek, 2020: 262-278). It was managed by a French Joint-Stock Company but there were Celâl Bayar (İşbank) and Jül Fresko among its five shareholders (Aydın et al., 2005: 401). It had a rich buffet made of various alcoholic beverages. Alcohol was served in its lobby, dining room and ballroom (Özalp, 2016: 412-413). In fact, the most important feature is its pioneer role to bring men and women together in the same place, having drinks all together, and to identify official receptions with dance and drink. Even though place and receptions were reserved to bureaucrats, foreign country representatives and upper classes, it initiated a change in official invitations, and hence, consumption of alcohol in public. However, it is hard to say that this new drinking attitude was commonly accepted. Some deputies or bureaucrats refrained from visiting these places or attending balls, especially with their wives.

34Beside these emblematic places, a “lived” drinking space appeared in a curve, starting from the vicinity of Zincirli Mosque on Karaoğlan Avenue up to Tahtakale and down to Posta Avenue (Özalp, 2016: 388-389). This curve followed the old traces of restaurants and coffee houses serving drinks, and other drinking places, giving prominence to Anafartalar Avenue and Posta Avenue (Yüksel, 2013). On Anafartalar Avenue, Turan Restaurant was visited by intellectuals, such as Yakup Kadri and Şevket Süreyya while low-income people could go to Karadeniz to eat and drink. Yeni Hayat Restaurant-Tavern (or Kürdün Meyhanesi), Şükran Restaurant and Tavern of Aslan Baba (Palabıyık’s), frequented by journalists, authors, poets and artists, were opened on Posta Avenue (Tanyer, 2018: 252-253; Tanyer, 2016: 211; Özalp, 2016: 394-396). This avenue, as well as Hamamönü and Hacettepe neighbourhoods, became host to many restaurants and taverns just after the move of various architects, engineers, craftsmen and workers from different countries and regions of Anatolia, following the construction boom of 1928. Bohemians, unemployed and bandits accompanied them. Additionally, many pubs and brasseries were opened on Karaoğlan (Bodrum Palas, Lâle) and Sanayi Avenue (Hess Kalmann’s), and in Tabakhane (Unkel). Çankırı Road became more popular and alongside the bars, restaurants were opened, such as Yeşil Fıçı and Uğrak.

35Outside the avenues, taverns appeared near open spaces, which were previously used as gathering places for festivals, weddings or picnics, and in small streets: Taverns of Hilmi Baba (in Bend Deresi), Atıf (Hacıbayram, Telgraf Street) and Rıza Dayı (Hamamönü, İtfaiye Square) (Özalp, 2016: 388). This fragmented accumulation points out that plenty of people were directed towards further drinking places in less “conceived” regions, regardless of their social origins. Although people started to drink more outside, they still preferred drinking implicitly to be comfortable. Tanyer (2016: 218) mentioned that even elegant men and women sometimes visited the Tavern of Hilmi Baba late at night for his tripe soup.

36Apart from Ulus city centre, drinking places spread throughout the city in line with the redevelopment plans for empty fields, swamps, vineyards and riverbeds as the distinctive characteristic of this period: Gazi Forest Farm and Çubuk Dam. There, the drinking places constructed as gazinos and recreation areas designed or left aside shows us that while fields were redeveloped, indoor drinking places known as “decent” places were “conceived” exclusively for certain social groups’ familial, visible and accepted practices and open spaces were left as “perceived” and “lived” spaces to the general public (Öymen, 202: 73-74; Dinçer, 2017: 322-324, 327-329; Cantek, 2020: 240-245; Özalp, 2016: 411). Also, vineyards transformed and changed their function, being turned into open-air recreation areas for public promenades or mostly opened for settlement (Cantek, 2020: 174-177). Kavaklıdere Wine Factory was an exemption in the sense of using vineyards in their original forms (Resuloğlu, 2014: 230-231, 235; Özalp, 2016: 401). Daughter and son-in-law of the deputy Tunalı Hilmi, Sevda and Cenap And, founded the factory as a private enterprise and started to produce wine in 1929 from the grapes cultivated in their vineyards or purchased from the neighbourhood vineyards. They sold these wines in their own shops.

37In addition, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), the President of the Republic, also went out of the presidential residence and diversified his semi-public leisure places, and hence, drinking places. His mansion, called Marmara Köşkü, was located at Gazi Forest Farm (Dinçer, 2017: 323).

Concluding Remarks

38When it comes to drinking in the provinces in a predominantly Muslim region, religious rules and values are assumed to be the only determinant in the creation of drinking culture. However, in the case of Ankara at the turn of the 20th century, and as we take into consideration drinking space(s), within which drinking habits and attitudes materialise while we experience them, we discover that cultural, social, political and economic capitals were as decisive as the religious capital. Seymens’ special drinking culture that took shape within a Muslim community is a good example. It also means that drinking practices cannot be interpreted exclusively within moral norms: each period that we deal with shows us that although drinking alcohol was not a part of daily routine, it was re-coded and found itself an “obscene area” from the very beginning. Drinking thus escaped from moral norms. While it became the prevailing reality in vineyards and in taverns, it was usually experienced implicitly but not seen as an illegitimate practice. That’s why, even if it is not mentioned, we can understand with the help of certain images and symbols that make these places “representational”, such as incesaz, orchestra, dance, glass, side dishes, sombre and derelict atmosphere.

39The transformation of these three moments – the “perceived”, the “conceived” and the “lived” – also reveal the same thing. Even after the declaration of the Republic and the “conceived” came to the forefront by means of city plans, the “conceived” was not the only determinant. In fact, all the “conceived” public spaces in which drinking took place somehow followed the traces of the “lived” places. Moreover, we see that the “conceived” did not mean fully planned or designed, but embodied a kind of “lived” experience at the same time. In other words, the “conceived” reproduced the space without standing outside the “lived” but in the same domain of the “lived”. This is probably why it became hegemonic but also embedded in the society.

40To conclude, we can say that it is impossible to infer that Ankara, the old province of the Empire, was a city deprived of a drinking culture. On the contrary, it had a multi-dimensional drinking environment, to be enlightened by further research. Drinking was a controversial subject and secular reforms played an important role after the Republic. However, drinking was a social practice embedded in everyday life, and it transformed not at the expense of society, but along with it and within its complexity.