Transformation of Silifke—A Historic Town in Anatolia in the Ottoman Period

Abstract

This article focuses on the Ottoman Period urban fabric of Silifke, a crucial historical town in Turkey. The aim of this paper is to develop a research framework for the transfer of cultural heritage and cultural continuity in multi-layered historical cities. In this context, investigating the level of sociocultural transition and physical permeability between layers is the main problem of the article. The scope of the study consists of an approximately 1.5 km² (150 hectares) area within the boundaries of the 3rd Degree archaeological site determined in 1995 by the Adana Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation Regional Board. In the case area, there are building remains and 58 registered buildings, 40 of which were built during the Ottoman Period. The findings and evaluations were examined in three parts: the periods before the Ottoman Period, the Ottoman Period, and the Republican Period. Analyses were developed independently or overlapped from archive documents such as the Presidential Ottoman Archive (BOA), provincial yearbooks, engravings of travelers, photographs, aerial photographs of different years, current maps, zoning plans, and conservation plans. Then, we made descriptions and inferences about urban change/transformation, which is affected by the political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors of the town and will shape the future change/transformation and management of the town. The ultimate goal is to set up a basis for the Silifke town center that will guide future interventions and design and planning policies for cultural continuity.

1. Introduction

To understand the history of cities, it is more accurate to start by defining the concept of the city and the components of the city. The elements that make up the historical urban fabric are indisputable arguments for forming urban identity and cultural memory. The cultural heritage areas, which are transferred from the past to the present day, consisting of archaeological, cultural, social, economic, and aesthetic values, establish a connection between the past and the future and enhance the sense of urbanity and ownership [1]. The phenomenon of the city is explained as a dynamic concept that has different meanings with its qualitative and quantitative features in every period of history. In the historical development process, the words ‘cite’, ‘polis’, ‘medina’, ‘kent’, ‘bourg’, ‘ville’, ‘city’, and ‘urban’ have been used conceptually [2].

Every city has a long or short adventure that makes its story meaningful. The narrator’s focus and the audience are socially and physically crucial in this story. In some cities, a single historical wall is essential; in others, a single building or building groups are essential; and in some, the entire urban core is essential. In cities, there are several urban elements in different sizes and scales—from building components to buildings, and from buildings to building groups—due to the combination of building groups and integration with public spaces. As a socio-spatial concept, the settlement city includes tangible and intangible heritage as a whole. Therefore, reading and understanding the multi-layered structure is a complex problem for a single discipline. All data regarding the settlement history of an ancient city are a multidisciplinary product created as a result of an interdisciplinary process involving archaeologists, historians, art historians, architects, engineers, geographers, urban planners, and similar experts in urban historiography [3].

The assets and cultural diversity of Turkey, like rich natural and cultural heritage, archaeological merits, language, religion, tradition, architectural environment, music, games, clothing, and nutrition, have been experiencing the danger of extinction even before they are introduced properly, and the fact that extinction represents a global risk for the future of humankind should always be kept in mind [4]. Turkey’s known multi-layered cities are not limited to the World Heritage Lists. In alphabetical order, according to their modern names, Adana, Amasya, Ankara, Antakya, Antalya, Bergama, Bodrum, Bursa, Çanakkale, Diyarbakır, Edirne, Foça, Gaziantep, İstanbul, İzmir, İzmit, İznik, Kayseri, Konya, Manisa, Mardin, Milas, Side, Silifke, Sinop, Şanlıurfa, Tarsus, Trabzon, Tokat, Urla, Van, and Zile are some of the multi-layered settlements [5]. According to the official figures of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, there are 22,898 archaeological sites, 355 urban areas, 223 historical areas, 35 urban archaeological sites, and 121 mixed protected areas in Turkey [6]. In the current literature review, the cities of Tarsus, Izmir, Ankara, Bergama, Amasya, Foça, Kayseri, and Sinop are important centers that are studied directly in relation to the multi-layered urban concept [5].

In such studies, which are revealed as a kind of voyeurism by examining horizontal and vertical layers, it is a matter of debate which layer of history the authorities are more willing to reveal, interpret, highlight, and present. This situation can sometimes occur due to the wrong orientations under the monopoly of political authorities. At the same time, the attitudes of non-governmental organizations or local community groups advocating the protection of the historical environment and the findings of which layer they want to see guide their work in multi-layered cities. In addition, the layer or transition between layers prioritized by the researcher may have positive or negative effects on decision-makers and managers. Leaving no gaps in laws and regulations and reaching conclusions in line with the integrated decisions of multiple disciplines by considering all components of the city together at the urban scale, instead of solutions at the land scale, enables cities with sustainability and cultural continuity.

Silifke, having natural, cultural, and archaeological values, has undergone the historical processes to the fullest, but the historical accumulation throughout the years is not noticed today. Although Silifke is known to be rich in sociocultural and physical aspects in its 8000-year history, the fact that its cultural values are not documented and transferred to the reproduction process leaves the city’s long adventure doomed to extinction. The reflection of the poor and the wealthy years of the Ottoman Empire, which dominated Silifke for 440 years between 1483 and 1923, is observed in the urban fabric, but these traces are being erased day by day. In the study, the administrative, economic, and urban change/transformation process that Silifke went through under the Ottoman reign was documented. In this documentation, both the periods before the Ottoman Period were emphasized, and a contextual framework was created with the Republican Period.

Geographical Location of Silifke (Seleuceia ad Calycadnum)

Silifke is a town in the south of Anatolia, connected to Mersin province since 1933. The city is located between the Mediterranean Region and the Taurus Mountains, be-tween 33°56′–34°25′ eastern meridians and 36°21′–36°40′ northern parallels. Silifke, which covers 18% of the 15,853 km² area of Mersin province, has Karaman province on its northern border, Mut and Gülnar districts on its western border, Erdemli district on its eastern border, and the Mediterranean Sea on its southern border [7]. The center of Silifke is situated on the banks of the Göksu River, which was called Calycadnos in ancient times, down the lower slopes of the Taurus Mountains and 14 km from the Mediterranean Sea [8]. Silifke is located at the junction of Mersin–Konya and Mersin–Antalya highways. Its geographical location and favorable climatic conditions have allowed many settlements in Silifke for millennia [9]. As of 2023, Silifke has a surface area of 2.943 km², 89% of which is mountainous, and 11% contains plains [10].

2. Materials and Methods

Within the framework of each city’s own historical process, this paper builds its arguments on the role of social and physical transformation in the urban core in parallel with human behavior and historical development, which are used as the basis for the analysis of the case area. Examining the transformation of a multi-layered city means revealing not only the buildings but also all the components of the examined area on a macro and micro scale. At the same time, presenting concrete data by associating any period in the multi-layered cities examined with its before and after will directly affect urban planning decisions. In the process of documenting urban data, it is necessary to work on meaningful sub-character regions to understand both vertical and horizontal relationships [11]. Periodic layer documentation and mapping is a research method for examining settlements layer by layer. Periodic layer maps can include not only historical periods but also built-up areas, borders, entrances, gates, monumental and important uses, and urban sub-regions [12,13,14]. Another method is to analyze the structural features and urban components of two multi-layered cities with similar characteristics but are essentially different by examining the same periods. In the research project titled ‘The Impact of Ancient Cities’, completed at the University of Cambridge with the support of the European Research Council (ERC), the geography of the Roman Empire is considered as a whole. An evaluation is made on the impact of Roman cities on the development of European and Islamic cities [15]. These types of studies are also a part of urban morphology, which incorporates different approaches from different disciplines and countries [16,17]. The scientific arguments put forward as the evolutionary theory of urban morphology examine the city in three stages: (a) the streets and their street system, (b) the plots and their plot pattern, and (c) the building arrangement within these patterns [18,19]. Analyzing the concepts of the built environment at various scales through measurements of building components is also one of the methods of examining urban change [20].

This study includes qualitative and quantitative research methods within the methodological framework. The article contains data that will directly affect the development of historical environmental protection principles, urban planning decisions, urban sustainability, and cultural route determination in multi-layered cities whose historical significance has been ignored. In addition, the city composition created by the buildings of the Ottoman Period was revealed and associated with the current urban scheme. The destruction of most of the Ottoman Period buildings and the lack of sensitivity to what was left behind and their surroundings determine the starting point of this study. Despite the political conflicts between 1483 and 1923, the qualified buildings in the city core, where Armenians, Greeks, and Turks lived together, have been greatly damaged today. The urban texture of the Ottoman Period was revealed by using analytical methods to ensure the sustainability of the remaining buildings and their protection, offer reflections on the future, and establish correct relationships with new buildings. By using CAD programs in the analysis, new schematic, periodic, and systematic maps have been produced with a concrete and multidisciplinary approach based on sketches, engravings, aerial photographs, municipal maps, and city maps.

3. Socio-Political Features of Silifke (Seleuceia ad Calycadnum)

Silifke, which has existed since ancient times, and which has been a part of Mountainous Cilicia as a city, has been the host to many civilizations and has created a cultural mosaic with various ethnic structures [21,22]. The known societies and states are Luwians, Hurrians, Aramis, Hittites, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Seleucidians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Karamanids, and Ottomans [23]. According to historical records, the oldest society known to have lived in the region in 3000 BC is the Luwians, a branch of the Central Asian Sumerians. The first state established in Silifke was recorded as the Arzava Kingdom (1750 BC) [24]. As a result of the interaction of the kingdoms established in the same period around Silifke, various communities formed by people from different races emerged, and these communities were influential in Silifke’s sociology. After the death of the Macedonian King Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, since he had no children, the lands he owned were shared by four commanders, named Antigonos, Lizimakos, Ptolemy, and Seleucus [25], and Seleucus took over the most important part of the country’s territory.

Seleukos began to shape the city, called Seleuceia ad Calycadnum, by bringing the people of Ağa Port, located in the vicinity of Holme/Holmoi (Taşucu), from the west of the city, and the people from Ura and Olba, in the north of the town, to the area known as the city center of Silifke today to make them work [26]. The city of Seleuceia, founded by Seleukos Nicator as a city-state in 290 BC, had been a new city for just ten years when it was taken under Egyptian rule in 280 BC due to the failures of subsequent kings [27]. The period until the beginning of Roman domination (64 BC) was expressed as the years of social and physical turmoil in Silifke.

Along with the administrative period that started with the Seleucids (312 BC–64 BC), six critical administrative periods affected the formation and development of the city. These are (i) the Seleucid Period (312 BC–64 BC), (ii) the Roman Period (64 BC–395), (iii) the Byzantine Period (395–647), (iv) the Karamanoğulları Period (1256–1483), (v) the Ottoman Period (1483–1923), and (vi) the Period of the Republic (after 1923). During these different administrative periods, the structures were shaped around Silifke Castle. They attempted to establish a commercial connection with the interior part of Anatolia and wanted to develop trade through Taşucu Port and Port Castle (Ak Liman).

The Roman Period was the brightest period of the city, both culturally and physically. The Byzantine Period continued the character of the Roman Period. Arab oppression began in the city in 647. The struggles between Byzantium and Arabs continued until 1256. With the arrival of the Karamanoğulları in the city in 1256, the Turks began to live in the city. Due to the geographical location of the city, which provided opportunities for asylum seekers to flee or hide, it hosted different nations from various cultures from 3000 BC to the Ottoman Period [28].

4. Physical Structure of Silifke

4.1. Until the Ottoman Period (290 BC–1483)

General Seleukos, realizing the strategic location of Silifke in the first days of his arrival in the region, brought with him builders, architects, and artists who were trained in the Hellenic culture to establish the city, and they planned the location of the town together [29]. The city was designed and shaped regularly. The most important reason for the Seleucids to engage in reconstruction activities was to strengthen the region [30]. Being aware of the necessity to initiate the Hellenization process in the area, Seleucids attempted to spread their culture, religion, and language. Since they knew the role of stone architecture in the defense system to ensure permanence, they tended to apply the stone masonry technique and architectural styles [31].

The main structure of Silifke center, which had spread over a wide area in the 21st century, dates back to the Seleucids. The internal strife brought about by the power struggles in the Seleucid Period caused the inhabitants of the city to riot. After a while, the people of Silifke seized the palace and set it on fire [32]. The town of Seleuceia was completely burnt to the ground after the wars that broke out to take over the city in 70 BC [30]. Due to the fire that spread and destroyed many parts of the city, including the palaces and the Temple of Zeus, there is no evidence, namely any physical trace, of the Seleucids [33].

In Seleuceia, during the period of Augustus, which was the first years of the Roman Empire, no reconstruction activities took place due to the pirate attacks on the one hand and the continuation of the turmoil in the city on the other [34]. Archaeological evidence supports the existence of an increasing construction process, especially from the end of the 2nd century AD to the beginning of the 3rd century AD. In this process, structures forming urban architectural textures, such as aqueducts, temples, monumental gates, fountains, tombs, and columned streets, were built [35]. Although there were similarities in the general architectural construction policies of Seleucia during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, it is distinctive that the Romans were able to achieve more permanent solutions to the city’s problems by creating superior engineering examples [33].

Firstly, the acropolis where the Seleucids had settled and sustained their lives was crucial for the Romans. The Romans built the temple in the area that Seleucids used for religious purposes, and they continued using it for religious purposes. Built in parallel with the increasing construction activities during the 1st century BC, the Stone Bridge greatly affected urban development. During the Roman Period, the city, which developed within the triangle of the temple, the Stone Bridge, and the Acropolis, became a developed one, with its theater, which is mostly in ruins today, and its stadium, of which no traces remain (Figure 1). The structures mentioned were found in engravings and maps drawn during the Ottoman Period [36].

With the acceptance of Christianity as the official religion in 380 AD, the Aya Tekla Basilica in Silifke revitalized the city. After the division of the Roman Empire into two in 395 AD, Silifke came under the rule of the Byzantine Empire. The structures remaining from the Byzantine Empire Period prove the city’s physical development at that time. In the Middle Ages, Silifke was a castle settlement. Resisting the Arab attacks in the 7th century, Silifke (Castle) passed under the control of the Armenians during the reign of Rupen III (1175–1187). In this period, nomadic Turkmen came to the surroundings of Silifke, which was a military-quality living area within the identity of the castle city. The Armenian King Leon the 2nd, who could not resist the Seljuks, abandoned Silifke and left the city to the Knights of Saint-Jean [37]. Having been attacked many times since the 13th century, Silifke came under the rule of Karamanoğlu in 1256, and the castle was restored [38]. In summary, although there is no physical record from the Seleucid Period, Silifke Castle, Stone Bridge, and Roman Temple, which were known to have existed in the Roman Period, prove the life of Silifke and are documents that have survived to the present day. From the Byzantine Period (395–647) to the Ottoman Period (1483–1923), it is possible to talk about a visible castle settlement in Silifke. At the same time, according to the statements that the Alaaddin Mosque was built before 1356–1390, there was a settlement in the center of Silifke before the Ottoman Period [37].

Silifke was primarily a castle settlement due to political turmoil in the 12th and 13th centuries [39]. In 1471, the Ottomans wanted to seize Silifke with an army under the command of Gedik Ahmet Pasha [32]. As a result of the conflict, the walls of Silifke Castle collapsed, and many houses within the castle walls were destroyed. The Ottomans, who could breach the wall and attack through these openings, took the Castle of Silifke easily [8].

4.2. During the Ottoman Period (1483–1923)

Silifke was the center of Icel Sanjak under Ottoman rule in the 16th century. When examined by going back to about 520 years, it is stated that there were 17 houses—apart from the castle—on the ruins of the ancient city in 1500, and there was urban use in the area, consisting of a single neighborhood called Tevekkül [40]. The number of neighborhoods in Silifke, whose city center area and population grew, increased to two in 1876 records, five in 1879, and eight at the beginning of the 20th century (Figure 2) [36,41].

Seven of these neighborhoods are Saray, Mukaddem, Camikebir, Pazarkaşı, Atik, Bucaklı, and Say Neighborhoods, which are still known by the same name. Today, the boundaries of these neighborhoods have been expanded or narrowed, and their sizes vary. Göksu Neighborhood, located north of the river today, was used intensively only during the Republican Period (Figure 3).

Table 1. Number of dwellings, neighborhoods, and population from 1500 to 1902 (produced by corresponding author, 2021; data gathered from [44,45,46,47,48]).

Year	Number of Dwellings	Number of Neighborhoods	Population (Outside of the Castle)
1500	17	1	86
1518	30	1	155
1522	37	1	192
1555	45	1	226
1584	56	1	322
1651	20	1	100
1702	68	1	340
1711	41	1	205
1831	80	1	400
1844	99	1	495
1876	170	2	854
1879	341	5	1708
1882	492	5	2460
1893	490	5	2450
1902	500	8	2500

presents the number of residences and population in the city at regular intervals between 1500 and 1902 (Table 1) [42]. According to the data extracted from the table and Laborde’s city map of 1838, the areas where urban use is concentrated are marked (Figure 4) [43].

Due to the development of trade between Konya and Silifke, mainly in agriculture and import/export goods, the population profile of Silifke also became more urbanized in the 19th century. This, in turn, led to the building of multi-storey, multi-roomed, tile-roofed, mansion-style structures. However, the opening of the Adana–Mersin railway at the end of the 19th century stopped the growth and development of Silifke. According to the Conservation Development Plan approved by Adana Cultural and Natural Heritage Preservation Regional Board in 1995, there are 58 registered buildings in the study area. As a result of various excavations and findings, in which the archaeological site ratings and registered structures were examined, it has been concluded that many historical areas and structures in the urban texture disappeared until 1995. Among these structures, 40 buildings—21 of which are residences, 12 of which are shops, and the others are building groups with different functions—belong to the Ottoman Period.

4.2.1. Plan Typology of the Ottoman Period

In the Silifke urban core, there are few houses in the Ottoman Period plan type that have survived until today. According to the Silifke Conservation Plan, 22 houses belonging to the Ottoman Period were preserved in the study area, including the Atatürk House, which is used as a museum today. Silifke house typology is generally identified as one or two floors, with a flat area, large garden, outer walls, and garden walls following the natural line of the street [49]. The Ottoman Period houses were built at the corner of the plots or parallel at the side of the street. The entrances of the houses are from the road side, as indicated by the red arrows in the figure (Figure 5). The entrances of the one-storey houses first provided access to the anteroom and then to the rooms through the arched doors [50]. In two-storey houses, there are two types of arrangements: ‘Hayat’ and ‘Sofa’. The common meaning of the concept of the ‘Hayat’ is determined as ‘the place where daily life takes place’. In addition, the term ‘Hayat’ has meanings such as ‘the place separating the house and the garden’, ‘the space between the house and the street’, or ‘the border separating the house from the outside’ [51]. The ‘Sofa’ is a common area where communication between rooms is ensured. The rooms are not connected to each other and open directly to the ‘Sofa’. This is the most important feature that distinguishes the traditional Turkish house from European houses. The importance of the ‘Sofa’ stems from the fact that it affects the plan and shape of the house [52]. Most of the 18th and 19th century houses are ‘Hayat’ houses with three rooms on the first floor. ‘Hayats’ were later closed and became ‘Sofas’ [53].

Only low-income Muslims lived in the ‘Hayat’ arrangement houses in Silifke. Volumes such as a barn, warehouse, and cellar were located on the ground floor. Living areas were designed on the first floor, and all the arrangements were made without thinking of any details. Ground-floor and the first-floor entrances were arranged separately. A ‘Hayat’ house’s top floor consists of a wooden ceiling and eaves.

In the two-storey houses with a ‘Sofa’, the main entrance was located on the street fa-cade. The house was surrounded by a high garden wall and with an entrance door from the garden. The bay windows (cumbas) on the street facades, which are supported by stone or wood consoles, have given dynamism to the two-storey houses. The bay windows (cumbas), which are the continuation of the room or the ‘Sofa’ above the entrance door, were surrounded by windows on three sides (Figure 6). They were obtained by extending the wooden floor beams to the outside, supported by wooden buttresses, also known as flanks or breast built with the technique of lacing (bağdadi).

In some Ottoman Period houses, spolia materials reflecting the archaeological features of Silifke were used (Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9). These elements sometimes appear as pillars that support houses, and sometimes as landscape elements used in gardens. These materials, most of which are dated to the Roman Period, were taken from the ruins of the surrounding ancient towns. In the Ottoman Period houses, ornamental motifs were generally seen on wood and stone [33].

There are two roof types, flat or inclined, of the Ottoman Period houses. The Ottoman Period flat-roof houses were designed as follows:

-

With or without protrusions (while sloping roofs were designed with protrusions);

-

Entrance doors have single or double wings, and also some doors have arches;

-

The ground floor windows of service spaces have dimensions such as 40 × 40 cm and 60 × 60 cm, and the other windows are the same size as the upper floor windows, 80–90 cm wide and 150–160 cm high;

-

Wood and iron were used in the windows.

In the Ottoman Period, building facades’ materials were composed of wood and stone. The void (windows’) ratio is approximately 1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2; solid surface covers much more span than the voids on the facades (Figure 10).

4.2.2. Land Utilization of the Ottoman Period

According to the land use analysis, the area where commercial buildings are located, especially since the Ottoman Period, has been surrounded by residences. The structures marked on the engraving drawn in 1907 can be followed on the map as the urban pattern of the Ottoman Period (Figure 1). The commercial center, which developed around the Alaaddin Mosque in the Ottoman Period, maintains its continuity today (Figure 11). However, in the process, many qualified buildings were demolished, and the new buildings built in their places disrupted the contextual integrity. Today, all the buildings other than the commercial center are residential, but the ground floors of the apartments are used as shops. Public spaces are integrated with the commercial center. Religious and educational structures are spread throughout the area.

The urban usage area, which developed in the castle and its east during the Hellenistic period, shifted further to the east during the Ottoman period. It has been determined that, in the Republican Period, especially after the 1960s, the use of urban areas expanded further and grew gradually in the periods shown in the chronological drawings from 1 to 9 (Figure 12) [54].

4.2.3. Street Systems of the Ottoman Period

Archaeological axes that have been discovered since ancient times have been the determinants of urban continuity. Especially in recent years, studies on multi-layered cities have included maps of main arteries and intermediate axes, which lead to the definition and shaping of urban forms (Figure 13).

It is observed that the axes that developed in the core of Silifke have undergone minor changes since the establishment of the city and have maintained their continuity. The main arteries and intermediate axes, which were formed because of the planned development activities carried out by Seleukos Nikator for 5 years (295-290 BC), developed organically on the Silifke Castle (acropolis) and its skirts, and they were shaped parallel and perpendicular to each other, taking the Göksu River as a reference in the city center [57].

The natural components of the city, such as the Acropolis area and the Göksu River, as well as data such as Silifke Castle, Roman Temple, and Stone Bridge, whose location has been fixed since the Roman Period, are the most important factors in determining the city arteries. The overlapping of city maps since the 19th century, when concrete documents were reached, proves that there has been no visible change in today’s axes and the city’s transportation network (Figure 14 and Figure 15) [58].

5. Conclusions, Findings, and Remarks for the Future

This study, which examines the components of the city and its transformations, along with the Ottoman urban fabric, provides a framework for the continuity of cultural transfer at its origin. The parameters are derived to produce new building forms by considering the cultural values and by evaluating the urban texture examined within the approximately 1.5 km² (150 ha) study area. Although the entire area is a third-degree archaeological site, there are approximately 22 hectares of first-degree archaeological site and 6 hectares of second-degree archaeological site within the study area. In line with the conservation decisions, no intervention has been made to the first-degree archaeological sites, but the second-degree archaeological site has been largely reconstructed. According to the findings, the use of an approximately 2000 m² fill area in 1500 did not increase substantially until the 18th century. In the 1700s, the building area doubled and increased by almost 100% (Table 1). In the first half of the 19th century there was a 100% increase in the fill areas in parallel with the population growth. Until the beginning of the 20th century, the land use was approximately 50,000 m². In today’s land use, buildings cover 308,058 m² of an area of 1.5 km². In this case, 21% of the study area consists of filling areas, and 79% consists of roads, squares, parks, Göksu River, vacant areas, and open areas (Figure 16).

Since the second half of the 19th century, there have been significant changes in the physical structure of Silifke, depending on its economic development. These changes, mainly reflected in the housing typology, constitute evidence for the Ottoman Period records in today’s Silifke urban fabric, with the effect of the construction system of that period and the building materials used. All the registered houses in the city reflect the economic situation as belonging to the Late Ottoman Period.

During the Ottoman Period, Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, and Turkmens lived together in the city. From the 16th century to the present day, the majority of the city’s population has consisted of Yoruks and Turkmens. During the early Republic Period, the Greek and Armenian population completely disappeared. In the city center, there are Turks who came from the island of Crete through exchange and a small number of Turkish Cypriots. Almost all of the Armenian houses were demolished, and new buildings were built in their place. Some of the buildings from the Ottoman Period which were registered and belonged to the wealthy families of the period, and which can be considered qualified in terms of architectural style and construction technique, were built by Armenian stonemasons, and it is possible to come across protected examples in the city center. The tradition of the Yoruks to live in hair tents prevented their development in stonemasonry. For this reason, most of the houses of the Early Republic Period were weaker in terms of the construction technique compared to the architecture of the Ottoman Period. In addition, many ancient structures were hidden in the lower layers of the Ottoman Period and Republican Period usage areas. Although independently registered examples of civil architecture are seen as singular in the urban texture, it is not possible to talk about the texture of the building groups belonging to the Ottoman Period. Especially until the 1950s, many of the Ottoman Period buildings were demolished. As a matter of fact, despite the new buildings built in the Early Republic Period, the number of residences is the same as in 1902 (Figure 17).

The connection of the city’s approximately 8000-year-old historical past with the future, the change/transformation of the urban usage in the Ottoman Period, was analyzed and evaluated. In this context, the Ottoman Period acts as a bridge and reveals the areas of interaction socially and physically. The cultural, social, physical, and economic erasure of the 150-hectare area examined within the scope of the study from the Silifke settlement—which today is approximately 250,000 hectares (2500 km²), and the city center settlement is 1000 hectares (10 km²)—will create memory loss in Silifke, and the spirit of the city will be completely destroyed, because the acceleration gained in social life through technological opportunities causes human beings to degenerate day by day and to ignore the old while being curious about the new. Efforts to preserve cultural heritage should not be left to the monopoly of political authority, administrators, non-governmental organizations, municipalities, and professional organizations authorized in their field, and this awareness should be spread. In this context, the study aimed to set an example for multi-layered cities such as Silifke. In different studies conducted under the leadership of this study, it is recommended to theoretically research and reveal archive documents that will contribute to urban memory and cultural heritage, to produce vertical layered maps covering the whole of Anatolia by making up-to-date markings on accessible archive maps, and to associate horizontal layers with each other in different cities. In these maps, the processing of socioeconomic (population, dividend records, and agricultural activities) and physical (registered buildings, unregistered buildings, geographical situation, and archaeological sites) traces of the period and the determination of empty areas without data refer to how urban use was transformed. There are many cities in Anatolia whose acropolis areas are excluded from urban use. In addition, necropolis areas are generally built with or without a construction permit. Determining whether urban continuity and sustainability is achieved will provide accurate urban planning by guiding many multidisciplinary approaches in cities such as Silifke, which stand out with their geographical characteristics and are shaped according to the river passing through the middle.