Adaptive Reuse of Tokat Deveciler Khan: An Assessment in Terms of Sustainability and Cultural Integrity

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCES AND SUSTAINABLE APPROACHES: URBAN RESILIENCE Editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 by İKSAD publishing house All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Institution of Economic Development and Social Researches (The Licence Number of Publicator: 2014/31220) TÜRKİYE TR: +90 342 606 06 75 USA: +1 631 685 0 853 E mail: [email protected] www.iksadyayinevi.com It is responsibility of the author to abide by the publishing ethics rules. Iksad Publications – 2025© Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience ISBN: 978-625-378-337-2 Cover Design: Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Ankara / Türkiye Size = 16x24 cm PREFACE Dear Professors and Colleagues, We are pleased bring to life that Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience, which was published as an e-book by IKSAD Publishing House with the editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU and Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ. This book project, entitled “Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience,” aims to address sustainability-oriented approaches to urban resilience from theoretical, methodological, and practical perspectives. The volume seeks to establish a multi-layered platform of discussion, ranging from the scale of individual buildings to the entirety of the urban fabric. Within this framework, it welcomes contributions from scholars and researchers working in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, environmental engineering, and related disciplines. With the valuable contributions of our chapter authors working in the professional disciplines of landscape architecture, architecture, city and regional planning, urban design and sustainability, we have completed Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience book study has been completed with 24 book chapters. We would like to thank you, our esteemed authors, for their contributions to the preparation of the book. We would also like to thank the editorial board and IKSAD Publishing House. We wish to continue this process we have started in the coming years. In addition, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Atila GÜL, the book coordinator of IKSAD Publishing House, for his guidance and support throughout the publication process. We hope that our book ‘Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience’ will be helpful to the readers. Best regards. 15.10.2025 EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ AUTHORS The authors were listed in alphabetical order Alper ÇABUK Ayça GÜLTEN Ayşe ÖZYETGİN ALTUN Ayşe Özge ŞİMŞEK SOYSAL Ayşegül TANRIVERDİ KAYA Demet EROL Deniz DEMİRARSLAN Ebru Vesile ÖCALIR Eda ŞENTÜRK Elif Kübra ÖZTÜRK Emine BAYDAN Esra KESKİN Feran AŞUR Feyza Sena ŞENOCAK Filiz KARAKUŞ Furkan AKDEMİR Gencay ÇUBUK Gülşah BİLGE ÖZTÜRK Halil DUYMUŞ Hamza ALTAŞ Hande AKARCA İnci OLGUN Kemal Mert ÇUBUKÇU Kumru ÇILGIN Mehmet Akif IRMAK Mehmet Emin DAŞ Mehtap ÖZENEN KAVLAK Merve ALICI AKA Mesut GÜZEL Muhammed Akif AÇIKGÖZ Muhammed Emir GÖRAL Murat YEŞİL Olcay Türkan YURDUGÜZEL Özge DÜZGÜN EREKİNCİ Pervin YEŞİL Rabia Nurefsan ACIKGOZ Sedef ŞENDOĞDU Seher Simay KUŞOĞLU Serim DİNÇ Sevilay YILDIZ Sinem SEYHAN Şevval ERGİNDOĞAN Şuheda ALTUNOK Temuçin Göktürk SEYHAN Tuba Nur OLĞUN Tuna BATUHAN Ufuk Teoman AKSOY Yusuf Eminoğlu REVIEWER LIST The authors were listed in alphabetical order Aslıhan TIRNAKÇI Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Atila GÜL Süleyman Demirel University Ayşe Kalaycı ÖNAÇ İzmir Katip Çelebi University Bige ŞİMŞEK İLHAN İstanbul Medipol University Burcu YILMAZEL Eskişehir Technical University Eda KOÇAK Siirt University Ekrem BAHADIR Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Elif KUTAY KARAÇOR İstanbul Technical University Hakan ARSLAN Ondokuz Mayıs University Hilal TURGUT Karadeniz Technical University Meliha AKLIBAŞINDA Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Murat AKTEN Süleyman Demirel University Nihan Sümeyye GÜNDOĞDU Atlas University Okan Murat DEDE Amasya University Ömer Lütfü ÇORBACI Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Selcen Nur Erikci Çelik Beykoz University Sibel AKTEN Isparta Unıversıty Of Applıed Scıences Sinem ÖZDEDE Pamukkale University Şeyma ŞENGÜR Ordu University Turgut KALAY Kütahya Dumlupınar University Tendü Hilal GÖKTUĞ Aydın Adnan Menderes University 379 1. Introduction Today, protecting cultural heritage involves not only preserving the physical structure of buildings but also making them functional by integrating them into modern life. In this context, adaptive reuse is an effective method for preserving historic buildings. Casal (2003) states that this approach is widely used, especially for buildings that are in good condition, spatially adaptable, and architecturally significant. It aims to give the building a new purpose while maintaining its historical and cultural features (Ijla & Broström, 2015). Adaptive reuse closely aligns with sustainability principles. Yung and Chan (2012) emphasize that this approach extends the lifespan of buildings, reduces demolition waste, and supports the local economy. Dyson & Matthews (2015) describe this strategy as a sustainable development tool that combines environmental benefits with social values. Therefore, this method is not only a conservation tactic but also a key element of sustainable urban transformation. The concepts of authenticity and integrity also play a critical role in these applications. While the Venice Charter (1964) states that the aesthetic and historical values of the building must be preserved, the Nara Certificate of Authenticity (1994) stresses that the cultural and functional aspects of these values must be considered, along with their physical aspects. Therefore, during the adaptive reuse process, in addition to physical protection, the social and visual integrity of the building must also be addressed (Jokilehto, 2006; English Heritage, 2008). Khan buildings in Anatolia have historically held an important place in urban life as centres of not only accommodation and trade but also social 380 and cultural interaction. Built during the Seljuk and Ottoman periods, these buildings responded to the economic, spatial and sociocultural needs of their period and became the main components of local production and circulation systems (Aslanapa, 1984; Koç and Asar, 2017). However, today, many khans have lost their original functions and are at risk of losing their original qualities due to long-term disuse, incorrect restoration practices or functional transformation pressures (Ahunbay, 2009; Karakuş, 2022). For this reason, the adaptive reuse of Khans to contemporary life is important not only in terms of physical protection but also in terms of the sustainability of social memory and identity (Kim, 1998). Through adaptive reuse, both the architectural features of historical structures are preserved, and their integration with urban life with new functions is ensured. These approaches support the continuity of the spatial and cultural connection established with the past, especially in structures with a distinct architectural language, such as khans (Ijla & Broström, 2015; Diamonstein, 1978). Deveciler Khan, located in Tokat province, is one of the original examples that should be evaluated in this context. Although its construction date is not certain, this building, which is thought to have been built in the 15th century, currently serves as a hotel and restaurant. However, studies on Deveciler Khan are quite limited in the existing literature. Existing publications mostly focus on the structural system and reinforcement techniques of the structure; the adaptive reuse process is only superficially addressed in the context of a short-term conservatory function. Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive evaluation of the methods followed in 381 the adaptive reuse process of the building, the spatial transformations applied and the relationship with the principles of sustainability. This study aims to reveal how the cultural heritage value of the building is preserved with contemporary functions and how it can be evaluated in terms of sustainability by addressing the adaptive reuse process of Deveciler Khan within the framework of the principles of authenticity and integrity. 2. Methodology This study examines the methodology followed in the adaptive reuse processes of Tokat Deveciler Khan. It evaluates how the building's original character is preserved, how it is adapted to modern needs, and how it overlaps with sustainability principles. The study's methodology has three main stages (Figure 1). 382 Figure 1. Workflow Diagram (created by the Authors) Firstly, the literature review was conducted to examine the concepts of adaptive reuse, sustainability and urban resilience and the studies on the relationship between these concepts. In addition, the focus was on regulatory frameworks (charters-declarations), principles of integrity and authenticity, historical and architectural features of khan buildings in Anatolia and adaptive reuse in khan buildings. In the second stage, a case study was conducted. Tokat Deveciler Khan was introduced with its location, historical past and architectural features, then the survey-restoration studies of the building together with archive 383 documents were examined and the interventions and restoration processes of the building were analyzed. The spatial and functional adaptations required by the new functions, the material preferences used, and spatial changes were examined in detail. In the last stage, the interventions made to the building during the adaptive reuse process were evaluated, their compliance with the sustainability principles was examined and guiding suggestions were presented for similar structures. This methodology systematically presents an effort to establish a balance by addressing the relationship between the protection of cultural heritage and contemporary uses, sustainability and urban resilience in the adaptive reuse of historical buildings, as in the case of Tokat Deveciler Khan. 3. Literature Review Over time, buildings lose their original function to adapt to changing user profiles and needs and are reused by adapting them to serve modern needs. (Douglas, 2006); defines adaptive reuse as 'maintenance and repair work aimed at changing the capacity, function or performance of a building'. (Casal, 2003); argues that adaptive reuse is a method widely applied worldwide, especially in well-preserved, spatially flexible and residentially valuable architectural examples. Adaptive reuse, which is one of the most frequently preferred approaches in the preservation and survival of historical structures, aims to protect the cultural heritage and create a sustainable environment by utilizing the existing potential of the building; This process is not limited to restoration, but aims to preserve the historical, cultural and architectural values of the building and to provide it with new functions. It is based on the principle 384 that the history, identity and original character of the building must be respected in all cases (Ijla & Broström, 2015). While buildings are generally constructed for specific functions, over time, they inevitably go beyond these functions due to social, economic and technological changes. Adaptive reuse involves making physical changes to buildings to adapt to different usage needs in response to these changes (Conejos, 2013). When the historical process is examined, it is seen that in many societies, old buildings have been adapted to new functions through methods such as expansion, decoration and reconstruction (Fitch, 1990). On the other hand, not only functionality but also efficiency of energy and resource use as well as future redevelopment potential have been considered in the construction processes (Arfa, et al. 2022). Adaptive reuse is an important part of the term sustainability. This adaptation process focuses on reusing existing buildings with functions that suit today’s needs, rather than reconstructing them. The adaptive reuse approach contributes significantly to the conservation of natural resources, saving materials and energy, and reducing waste (Yung &Chan, 2012). With this approach, environmental impacts can be minimized while extending the life of buildings. Sustainability is not limited to the environmental dimension; it also encompasses a more holistic approach that includes economic, social, and cultural elements (WCED, 1987). In this sense, the reuse of historical structures supports regional socio-cultural revitalization while also contributing to local economies and tourism (Ijla & Broström, 2015). Yung & Chan (2012) defined adaptive reuse as ‘an essential component of sustainable urban renewal, extends the lifespan of buildings while 385 preventing demolition waste, promoting the reuse of embodied energy, and providing significant social and economic benefits to society’ in the term of urban resilience. This term aims to make cities and historical buildings resilient to future crises and environmental threats, while preserving social integrity and local identity. The term urban resilience is defined as the capacity of structural and social systems to adapt, exhibit flexibility, and reconstruct in response to unexpected shocks, such as natural disasters, economic fluctuations, and climate change, by evaluating them as a whole (Kayar and Kutlu, 2022). In this context, adaptive reuse practices of historical buildings support not only physical sustainability but also the holistic resilience of the urban system. Indeed, a reuse project targeting environmental sustainability also contributes to the construction of a durable urban fabric that connects with the memory of the society, strengthens social networks and creates economic vitality (Tuğaç, 2020). Therefore, sustainability and resilience should be considered as complementary strategies that feed each other in the protection of cultural heritage. At this point, adaptive reuse is considered one of the fundamental tools not only for sustainability but also for creating a crisis-resistant, flexible and sustainable urban fabric. Adaptive reuse preserves the value of historic buildings, minimizes environmental impacts, and contributes to society, economy, and the environment in line with sustainability principles. Adaptive reuse of buildings supports urban sustainability by combining both historic heritage and the needs of contemporary life. According to the Venice Charter, the adaptive reuse process is an important method for protecting historical 386 structures and their adaptation to contemporary functions. However, during this process, the plan, decorations and historical character of the structure must be preserved (ICOMOS,1964). A monument's aesthetic and cultural values should not be compromised during the reuse process, and its original qualities should be preserved to the greatest extent possible (ICOMOS,1964). Adaptive reuse provides both environmental benefits and contributes to achieving sustainable development goals by maintaining the cultural and architectural integrity of historic structures. However, in this process, it is essential to comply with the principles of authenticity and integrity. Interventions made during adaptive reuse must not harm the historical value and aesthetic integrity of the structure; on the contrary, these elements must be supported and adapted to modern functions. Therefore, adaptive reuse plays a critical role in the protection of historical heritage as well as environmental and social benefits. 3.1. The Notion of Authenticity and Integrity 3.1.1. Authenticity The concept of authenticity in the field of architectural conservation has been widely documented and has become an important criterion in many different areas (Jokilehto, 2006; ICOMOS, 2014). However, in documents such as UNESCO's Convention on the Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage or the Florence Declaration, it has been stated that there is a hesitation towards authenticity. Munjeri (2000) states that preserving the vision of the past is important in order to guide the future. Cultures are built on the continuity of messages from today. However, the concept of authenticity must have a flexible 387 understanding in line with different influences and changes. Otherwise, living cultures may be endangered. It was stated that in interventions to be made on structures, changes should be noticeable to the ordinary eye (English Heritage, 2008). In the Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964), authenticity is associated with aesthetic and historical values (Plevoets and Van Cleempoel, 2011). In addition, within the scope of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, in areas to be nominated for the World Heritage List, four main criteria such as design, material, workmanship and environment were sought for authenticity tests (UNESCO, 1977, Article 9). Following these developments, the Nara Authenticity Document (ICOMOS,1994) addressed the concept of authenticity in a broader framework. It was emphasized that not only tangible elements but also intangible elements such as traditions, techniques, language, spirit and feeling should be evaluated (ICOMOS, 1994, Article 7). After 1994, the concept of authenticity was expanded to include elements such as traditions, techniques, language, spirit and feeling (Jokilehto, 2006). 3.1.2. Integrity The concept of integrity is an important tool for assessing the value of historic structures. The World Heritage Operational Guide (2005) defines integrity as follows: “Integrity is the level of integrity and soundness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes. The assessment of integrity involves analysing whether the structure contains all the elements necessary to express its Outstanding Universal Value, whether it is of sufficient size and 388 whether it has not suffered from adverse effects of development or neglect.”( The World Heritage Operational Guidelines, 2005, par. 88) Integrity is addressed in three main dimensions (Taylor, 1991; English Heritage, 2008). Firstly, it is important to preserve the physical integrity of the structure. Secondly, the historical and aesthetic values of the structure should be accurately reflected, that is, the principle of honesty is emphasized. Finally, the qualities of the structure should be fully presented, that is, a full representation should be provided. Jokilehto (2006) also explained the concept of integrity in detail with three additional parameters. Accordingly, socio-functional integrity refers to the preservation of the social function of the structure, while structural integrity refers to the preservation of the structural strength of the structure. Visual integrity refers to the visual perception of the structure remaining in harmony with its historical identity. Integrity, just like originality, should be based on a comprehensive understanding that will prevent the loss of the values of the structure in the interventions to be made (English Heritage, 2008; ICOMOS, 2014). 3.2. Khan Buildings: A Historical and Typological Review Khans have historically been divided into two different types in terms of function and architecture: "caravanserais" outside the city and "city khans" in city centres (Campbell,2011). Cerası (2001) defined the khan as "structures with arcaded courtyards without any enclosed space, called ribat in Central Asia, built by the military aristocracy to support transit trade and host merchants". Akozan (1963) defined the khan as "structures built entirely of masonry to accommodate travellers and caravans and preserve goods on busy streets and in guesthouses". Hasol (2002) also 395 to its location on trade routes. These buildings functioned not only as centres of trade but also as social areas where people came together. Important structures such as Gök Medrese, Pervane Hamamı, Taşhan, Deveciler Khan and Hatuniye Mosque from the Seljuk and Ottoman periods in Tokat bear traces of the city's cultural and commercial past (Korumaz & Erarslan, 2019). Regarding the development of trade in Tokat, it has been stated that the number of khans recorded in cities such as Afyon, Tokat and Beypazarı in the 16th century was quite high. Tokat became the centre of regional trade during this period (Faroqhi, 1994). In addition, the oldest trade centre of Tokat is Sulu Street and its surroundings to the south of the castle, and the city, which grew over time, formed three important trade areas during the Seljuk and Ottoman periods: Sulu Street and its surroundings, the area around the Ali Pasha Mosque, and the area between the Hatuniye Mosque and Taşhan (Akın, 2009). It is stated that among the commercial and cultural buildings in the city, many buildings around the Ali Pasha Mosque were destroyed as a result of the great fire that broke out in 1914 (Beşirli, 2001). 4.1. Architectural Features of Deveciler Khan Deveciler Khan in Tokat stands out as a typical example of Ottoman city khans (Figure 5). The name of this structure, which is estimated to date back to the 15th-16th centuries, is mentioned as "Taş Khan" in Ottoman documents, while it is known as "Deveciler Khan" among the public. It is thought that this name spread because camels were kept in the stable. The building offers a balanced combination of functionality and aesthetics shaped according to trade and accommodation needs (Altaş, 2002). When 396 the distinctions are taken into consideration, Tokat Deveciler Khan is classified as a Passenger Khan with its large courtyard, shelter and storage areas on the lower floor and accommodation rooms on the upper floor. Figure 5. Tokat Deveciler Khan (URL3, 2024) The khan is a two-story structure with a rectangular plan. The entrance is provided by a square-planned, pointed-arched, domed area on the north facade. This entrance leads to the courtyard with a pool in the middle. The courtyard is surrounded by porticoes on both the ground floor and the upper floor. The ground floor consists of a total of 27 square-planned rooms with private rooms in the four corners. The stable area is a structure with two naves supported by four square columns. On the upper floor, there are 17 square-plan, and 5 rectangular-plan rooms lined up behind the porticoes. In addition, 18 shops are located on the north facade, suitable for commercial activities (Saka Akın & Demiroğlu İzgi, 2021). Some parts of the structure were damaged by earthquakes over time after its construction. In the photographs taken in 2007, it was observed that the interior porticoes were destroyed and the vaults of the stable section 397 collapsed (Figure 6). After the restoration works, it was made suitable for both commercial and cultural use (Çavuş & Arslan, 2023). Figure 6. View of the courtyard and camel barn section of Deveciler Khan (OTS Project & Consultancy Archive, 2007). The materials used in the construction of Deveciler Khan are durable materials such as cut stone and rubble stone. In addition, brick was used for the vaults and domes. The architectural features of the structure reflect the aesthetic and functional understanding of Ottoman-era architecture, and this understanding was preserved during the restoration process and the structure was given a new life (Aksulu, 1991; Altaş, 2002). Deveciler Khan is one of the structures of the Ottoman period and was built in the 15th century. The main purpose of the building was to provide a suitable environment for caravans and people to come and stay with their camels. According to sources, people continued to come to this khan with their camels until the 1950s, which shows that the building was used for its original function for many years after its construction (Altaş, 2002). However, a major earthquake in 1939 caused serious damage to the structure and the inscription of the khan was lost in the process. Since the building was not repaired after the earthquake (Figure 7), it is understood 398 that the damages negatively affected the use of the building for different purposes over time (Saka Akın & Özen, 2013). Figure 7. Ground and First Floor Survey Plans (Tokat Regional Directorate of Foundations Archive). After the 1950s, Deveciler Khan was used as a forestry depot, then served as a livestock market and a weekly Friday market by the municipality. In the 1980s, the building was used as the municipal cleaning directorate for a while and then served as a vehicle depot for 2-3 years. These processes reveal that the functionality of the khan constantly changed according to the needs of the period and the identity of the building evolved with different forms of use (Saka Akın & Demiroğlu İzgi, 2021). 4.2. Restoration Process and Adaptive Reuse of the Khan Deveciler Khan emerged in its original state after the shanty house annexes adjacent to the east and west walls of the building, which were in a very dilapidated state, were demolished during the restoration works initiated in 2007. This restoration aimed to bring the original structure to light while preserving the historical features of the building. The khan given a new function as Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University State Conservatory Turkish Music Department in 2012. The historical rooms inside the khan were 399 transformed into lecturer rooms and private tutoring centres. In addition, some rooms were combined to create classrooms and large spaces (Figure 8). However, at the end of 2019, the building used as a conservatory was vacated and re-restored as a boutique hotel. Figure 8. Deveciler Khan First Floor Plan, Restoration in 2012 (a) combined rooms and b) wet spaces) (Tokat Regional Directorate of Foundations Archive) Tokat Deveciler Khan was converted into a boutique hotel in 2019 and underwent various interventions to adapt to modern needs during this process. The changes in the ground floor and courtyard area (Figure 9) include important arrangements for adapting the structure to modern functions. The camel barn part of ground floor was reorganised for commercial functions as a restaurant and its kitchen. With this transformation, the old functions were largely lost, and the historical use of the structure was erased. 400 Instead of a traditional roof cover, a removable steel system was integrated into the courtyard. This new roof made the use of the courtyard flexible, while at the same time changing the original light and space perception of the structure. The wooden profiles in the courtyard were also used to hide the installation systems. These large-section wooden profiles interfered with the visual texture of the courtyard and damaged the aesthetic integrity of the original structure. Figure 9. The changes on the ground floor and courtyard (roof covering system, wooden profiles) (Silk Road Hotel Archive, 2025) The changes to the rooms and first floor include additional modifications to adapt the khan to its hotel function (Figure 10). The rooms on the upper floors were reorganized with partitions containing toilets and showers. This change altered the cellular structure of the original rooms and aligned the interior layout of the historic building with modern accommodation needs. Door openings were created in the stone wall as needed. Additionally, the old stove openings were converted into modern fireplaces, allowing the rooms to be reshaped in terms of aesthetics and functionality. 401 Figure 10. Deveciler Khan First Floor Plan, Restoration in 2019 (a) door openings b) wet spaces c) steel roof cover) (Tokat Regional Directorate of Foundations Archive) The wall surfaces of the rooms were generally renovated by painting, which caused the original material texture of the old structure to be lost. Plasterboard panels were added to conceal the electrical installations, resulting in the disappearance of the historical wall texture. Modern window systems were installed in the old openings using new wooden joinery, doors, and glass casings. Additionally, fireplaces were added to the rooms, transforming the old stoves into modern fireplaces (Figure 11). Figure 11. Interventions in the rooms (Silk Road Hotel Archive,2025) 402 Structural reinforcement was performed in 2009, and it continued serving as a hotel. Steel struts and tension rods were added to enhance the structure's stability. These reinforcements ensured safety but created a visual mismatch with the building's historical aesthetics. Although such interventions are necessary for security, they may also harm the historical character of the structure. As a result, the transformation of Tokat Deveciler Khan aimed to preserve the building's historical values while making significant changes to incorporate modern functions. The interventions improved the structure's usability but, in some cases, led to the loss of original structural and aesthetic features. This transformation process emphasizes the need for a more careful approach to protect the building's cultural and historical significance in the future. According to the Venice Charter, the intervention process must follow the order of consolidation, repair, and restoration; restoration should only be performed when necessary and in a way that does not compromise the artistic integrity of the structure. Non-original additions should be removed if they lack historical or artistic value; however, they should be kept if they possess such value. New additions should be made in a contemporary style, avoiding imitation, and should be distinguishable from the existing structure. All interventions must be documented, photographed, and archived, and the restoration should be marked by an inscription placed on the historic structure (ICOMOS,1964). The restoration of historical buildings requires the application of various techniques to preserve the original qualities of the structures. In this context, the reinforcement of the carrier system or environmental elements 403 with methods such as consolidation, injection, clamping and support is of great importance (Zakar, 2013). Integration refers to the completion of missing or damaged sections, based on reliable documents and remaining faithful to the original design (Ahunbay, 1995). Renovation is the restoration of parts that have lost their original features with appropriate materials and the sustainability of the function of the structure (Zakar, 2013). Reconstruction is the construction of copies of structures that have been destroyed by fire, war or natural disasters, based on original materials and documents. Cleaning is the removal of dirt or additions that have formed on the surfaces of structures over time with chemical or mechanical methods (Ahunbay, 1995). Finally, transportation involves the replacing of structures from their original locations to another area for their protection (Tellioğlu & Satıcı, 2023). The restoration of Deveciler Khan, which started in 2007, includes restoration principles such as consolidation, integration and renewal, together with the adaptive reuse approach. Adaptive reuse aims to make the existing structure functional according to contemporary needs while preserving the historical and cultural values of the structure. 4.3. Analysis of Interventions Adaptive reuse interventions carried out in Tokat Deveciler Khan have been evaluated within the framework of authenticity, integrity and reversibility principles in terms of their effects on the structure (Table 1). The reorganisation of the ground floor with commercial functions such as a restaurant, souvenir shop and service area is an example of adaptive reuse that supports the contemporary use of the structure. However, this 404 transformation has caused the structure to move away from its original khan function and weakened its connection with its traditional use. Although it is physically possible to transform, the interventions can be considered limited in terms of reversibility since they may leave permanent traces. Spatial integrity has also been significantly damaged by this change of function. The removable steel roof system placed over the courtyard (Figure 12) increased user comfort but damaged the traditional open courtyard character of the khan. Although it is technically possible to remove this cover system added to the structure later, the intervention is not fully reversible due to the integration of the support elements into the structure. In addition, this addition weakens the original emptiness and openness of the courtyard and creates a negative impact in terms of both authenticity and visual integrity. Figure 12. Steel Roof System placed over the courtyard (Tokat Regional Directorate of Foundations Archive, 2025) The large wooden profiles in the courtyard were placed to hide the modern installation systems; however, they have become a very dominant and permanent visual element in the structure. Although technically removable, these profiles are likely to leave permanent effects on the courtyard volume due to their height and the area they cover. This 411 References Afyoncu, E. (2014). Tokat Tarihi ve Kültürü Sempozyumu. Tokat: Gazi Osman Paşa Üniversitesi, s. 17-24. Ahmad Sumbul & Chase, Scott (2004). Design Generation of the Central Asian Caravanserai. eDesign in Architecture: ASCAAD's First International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design, 7-9 December 2004, KFUPM, Saudi Arabia. Ahunbay, Z. (1995). Tarihi Çevre Koruma ve Restorasyon. İstanbul: Yem Yayınevi. Akar, T. (2009). Osmanlı kentinde ticari mekânlar:bedesten-han-arastaçarşı mekânları literatür değerlendirmesi. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 267-292. Akın, E.S., (2009), Tokat Kenti Anıtsal ve Sivil Mimari Örneklerinin Analizi ve Değerlendirmesi, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, K.T.Ü., Trabzon. Akozan, F. (1963). “Türk Han ve Kervansarayları”, Türk Sanatı Tarihi Araştırma ve İncelemeleri, İstanbul Güzel Sanatlar Akademisi Türk Sanatı Tarihi Enstitüsü Yayınları, İstanbul, Sayı: 1. Akozan, F. (1979). İstanbul’un kapalı çarşısı. Tarih Dergisi. Aksulu, B. I. (1991). Tokat Deveci Hanı. 9. Milletlerarası Türk Sanatları Kongresi (ss. 65-77). T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayımlar Dairesi Başkanlığı. cited by (Çavuş & Arslan, 2023). Altan, H., & Özsoy, Ş. K. (2017). Great Khan from historical period to today and space facility in the context of sociocultural sustainability in adaptive re use. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication – TOJDAC, 7 (4). Altaş, N. (2002). Tokat şehiriçi hanları. Tokat Kültür Araştırma Dergisi, 53-57. Atalan, Ö., & Arel, H. (2016). 15. VE 16. Yüzyıllara ait Osmanlı Han Yapılarının Mekansal Analizi. Arfa, F., Zijlstra, H., Lubelli, B., & Quist, W. J. (2022). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: From a literature review to a model of practice. 412 Historic Environment: Policy and Practice, 13(2), 148170.https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2022.2058551. Aslanapa, O. (1984). Türk Sanatı. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi. Beşirli, M., (2001), 14 Mayıs 191 Tokat Mahkeme Çarşısı Yangını, Tokat Kültür Araştırma Dergisi, Tokat Kültür Araştırma Geliştirme ve Yaşatma Vakfı, Tokat. Campbell, J. L. (2011). Architecture and Identity: The Occupation, Use, and Reuse of Mughal Caravanserais. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada. Casal, S. (2003) The Adaptive Reuse of Buildings: Remembrance or Oblivion? Argentine/ Argentina. Cerasi, M. M. (2001). The Ottoman city. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Publications. Conejos, S. (2013). Designing for future building adaptive reuse (Doctoral dissertation, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia). Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture. Çavuş, M., & Arslan, M. (2023). Tarihi yapılarda üst örtülerin çelik malzeme ile tamamlanmasının yapısal açıdan incelenmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 11, 1563-1573. Diamonstein, B. (1978). Buildings Reborn: New Uses, Old Places. Douglas, J. (2006). Building adaptation. Oxford: Elsevier. Dyson, Kristy & Matthews, Jane. (2015). Critical success factors of adapting heritage buildings: An exploratory study. Built Environment Project and Asset Management. 6. 10.1108/BEPAM01-2015-0002. English Heritage. (2008). Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historical Environment. Faroqhi, S. (2004). Crises and change, 1590–1699. In H. İnalcık & D. Quataert (Eds.), An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire (Vol. II, pp. 543–757; A. Berktay, S. Andıç, & S. Alper, Trans.). İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık. (Original work published 1994). Fitch, J. M. (1990). Historic preservation: Curatorial management of the built world. University of Wisconsin Press. 413 Golombek, L. (1968). The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah. Iran, 26, 1–18. Gökbilgin, T. (1988). İslam Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı. Güran, C. (1978). Türk Hanlarının Gelişimi ve İstanbul Hanları Mimarisi, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını, İstanbul, 1978. Hasol, D. (2002). Ansiklopedik Mimarlık Sözlüğü (9. Baskı). İstanbul: Yapı-Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları. Ijla, A., & Broström, T. (2015). The sustainable viability of adaptive reuse of historic buildings. International Invention Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 2(4), 52-66. ICOMOS (1994, November 1-6). The Nara document on authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention. Nara, Japan. ICOMOS. (2014, November 9-14).The Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values. Florence, Italy. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1964). International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice Charter). Adopted at the 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964. Retrieved from https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf. Jokilehto, J. (2006). Considerations on authenticity and integrity in world heritage context. City & Time, 2 (1), 1.-16 Karakuş, F. (2022). Evaluation of adaptive reuse in the context of sustainability: Cases from Kastamonu, Türkiye. Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering, 30(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sace.30.1.30555. Kayar, İ., & Kutlu, S. Z. (2022). Kentsel dirençlilik ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ilişkisi üzerine bir değerlendirme. TroyAcademy, 7(2), 178-204. https://doi.org/10.31454/troyacademy.1088372. Kim, J (1998). Sustainable Architecture Module: Introduction to Sustainable Design (United States, The University of Michigan). Ann Arbor, Michigan: National Pollution Prevention Centerfor Higher Education, 414 Koç, İ., & Asar, H. (2017). Tarihi Kastamonu hanlarının ticari ve kültürel fonksiyonlar bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Artium, 5(1), 1–13. Korumaz, M., & Erarslan, M. H. (2019). Tokat tarihi kent merkezi Taşhan ve civarı yeniden canlandırma çalışmalarına yönelik değerlendirmeler. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(65), Ağustos. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3457. Kuban, D. (2000). Tarihi çevre korumanın mimarlık boyutu: Kuram ve uygulama. İstanbul: Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları. Michell, G. (1978). Architecture of the Islamic World: Its History and Social Meaning. London: Thames and Hudson. Munjeri, D. (2000, May, 26th-29th) . The notions of integrity and authenticity: the emerging patterns in Africa. Presented at „Authenticity and Integrity in an 95 African Context: Expert Meeting - Great Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe. France: Para Graphic. OTS Project & Consultancy Archive, Revieved April 6, 2025 https://www.otsproje.com.tr/tr/proje-detay/tokat-devecilerhan.html?I=95. Özdeş, G. (1998). Türk çarşıları. Ankara: Tepe Yayınları. Plevoets, B. & Van Cleempoel, K. (2011). Assessing authenticity of nineteenth century shopping passages. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1 (2), 135-156. Pope, A. U. (1971). Introducing Persian Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Saka Akın, E., & Demiroğlu İzgi, B. (2021). Tarihi hanlarda yeni işlev: Deveci Han ve Taşhan. Tokat Vakıflar Dergisi-56. Saka Akın, E., & Özen, H. (2013). 'Tarihi Yapılarda yeniden kullanım sorunları Tokat Meydan ve Sulu Sokak. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23-48. Silk Road Hotel Archive, Retrieved May 10,2025, from https://silkroadmuseumhotel.com/hotel-gallery. / Sönmez, S. (2007). Ortaçağ Türk ve İslam dünyasında kervansaraylar (hanlar-ribatlar) [Caravansaries in the Turkish Islamic world and 415 Medieval Age (Hans and Ribats)]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 270–296. Sözen, M., & Tanyeli, U. (1986). Dictionary of art concepts and terms. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi. Tellioğlu, S., & Satıcı, B. (2023). Tarihi yapılarda restorasyon tekniklerine göre uygulanacak malzemelerin belirlenmesi. Teknoloji ve Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, s. 37-49. Tokat Foundations Regional Directorate Archive. Tuğaç, Ç. (2020). Kentsel sürdürülebilirlik ve kentsel dirençlilik perspektifinden tarihteki pandemiler ve Covid-19 pandemisi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Salgın Hastalıklar Özel Sayısı, 259-292. UNESCO. (2005, February 2). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.05/2). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO (1977 June 27-July 1). Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Committee, Paris, France. URL1: Retrieved April 26, 2025, from https://okuryazarim.com/anadoluselcuklu-donemi-mimari-planlari/. URL2: Retrieved November 30, 2024, from Coğrafya Harita: http://cografyaharita.com/turkiye_mulki_idare_haritalari2.html. Ünal, Ç. (2005). Şehir Coğrafyası Açısından Tokat. Erzurum: Aktif Yayınevi. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. Yung, E. H. K., & Chan, E. H. W. (2012). Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat International, 36, 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.11.001. Zakar, L. (2013). Restorasyon Uygulamalarında Kullanılan Çağdaş Teknikler, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul. 416 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Filiz KARAKUŞ E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: PhD License: METU, Department of Architecture Degree: Gazi University, Department of Architecture Doctorate: Gazi University, Department of Architecture Professional experiences: I received my B.Arch in Architecture from Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture. I earned my M.Sc. and PhD. degree in architecture from Gazi University, Faculty of Architecture. I worked at the General Directorate of Foundations for 15 years. Currently work as an Assosiate Professor at Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University. Major research interests include conservation and restoration. Sevilay YILDIZ E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: Master’s Student in Architecture, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture License: Architecture, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Degree: MSc Candidate in Architecture (expected 2026), Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Professional experiences: I received my B.Arch in Architecture from Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University. I still continue Master program in Architecture. I worked at İki Çizgi Mimarlık & Restorasyon between August 2023 and April 2025. Currently work at Focus Restorasyon Mimarlık Office.