The Museum Hotel Antakya, whose project is managed by Emre Arolat Architects and whose design and application havebeen intertwined both intellectually and operationally since 2009 with its compound functions, the unique value of theAncient Roman ruins it hosts, and unusual construction methods. It can be subjected to different readings in various pluralcontexts that can be increased. The meaning of the object can be stratified, deconstructed or studied in the context ofsemantic transformations by considering it from different angles in numerous articles that can be written on the structure inquestion. Before the construction is completed; there is no doubt that the hotel, which has been widely discussed in thefields of architecture, archeology, conservation and similar areas, will remain on the agenda for a long time after itsopening and use. The article titled “Architectural Historical Semantic: The Neoliberal Capitalism-Driven Transformation of Karatepe Eaves:The Museum Hotel Antakya” is not a visual comparison of these two projects, neither tries it to create a “starchitectural”narrative by mentioning the two architects of the structures. This very study is a comparison of the projects with their socio economic background into which these structures, both of which can be considered “iconic” in their own temporal context,were born. In other words, architectural products, which are the indisputable reflections of state policies, and the two specificperiods that brought them into existence, are intended to be evaluated within the context of architectural reflexes that emergedwith the semantic transformation experienced as a result of neoliberal capitalist tendencies. The method adopted by the article is chronological. In the study, Karatepe Aslantaş Open-Air Museum, which was built on thebackground axis of the brutalist architectural products of 1950s Turkey and pronounced as Karatepe Eaves, is introduced as adesign object and tried to be understood with its context. Then, before introducing the Museum-Hotel function to the reader, itdiscusses the reflections of the decisions of January 24, 1980, on architectural production, which brought a total change inTurkey from different perspectives in the early 1980s, which was accepted as the breaking point of the transition to theneoliberal economy and free market that paved the way for its invention. The Museum Hotel Antakya, designed by Emre ArolatArchitects; is evaluated in terms of its invented function, context, design criteria, use of materials and features that make it a21st century architectural icon. The conclusion section, which is designed as an open-ended discussion platform, tries toanswer the following question and to put forward various answers and suggestions by problematizing this issue: “Is Eaves’Architectural Manifestation in the 21st Century a Hotel?” Emre Arolat’s architectural reflex includes an understanding that reminds a great deal of the sensitivity of the designers of theKaratepe Eaves. The architects of the two projects trace the “place” in their structures. Even the pilot elements, which are thecommon point of the projects and can allegorically take on the task of decontextualization, yield to the emphasis of thepermission, regardless of whether it is elegant or massive. In other words, the context confronts the experiencer as the mostimportant factor affecting the main decisions in both projects. The common point of these two designs, made 50 years apart,undoubtedly stems from the strength of their context. Two clusters of remains were not moved to the museum in line with theopinions of the experts, instead an in-situ conservation approach was adopted. However, 50 years ago, the protection approachof various historical and archaeological remains was a top cover that could not compete with it, today this top cover caneasily evolve into a world brand hotel, which is a rent-based product. The aim of the article is far from criticizing the architectural production of EAA or focusing on a social perspective on the prosand cons of the neoliberal system. What is particularly emphasized is the spatial transformation in which architecture has beenarticulated in 50 years, even if the architectural reflex is similar; it is the fact that the eaves are manifested in the conversionof the hotel. In other words, the protection top cover of the 1950s, consisting of eaves, was replaced by an invented function, amuseum-hotel, at the beginning of the 21st century. Such a comparison in the context of the semantic transformations ofarchitectural history objects will constitute important discussion fields for the literature.