A Semiotic Reading of the Architecture of the Jameh Mosque of Yazd from the Ilkhanid to the Timurid Period, with Emphasis on Muzaffarid Transformations

Abstract

Religious architecture is not merely a container for the performance of rituals; rather, it participates in the production of meaning through spatial organization, orientation, scale, movement sequences, inscriptions, and ornamentation. The central problem of this study is how the architecture of the Jameh Mosque of Yazd can be analyzed in relation to its spatial structure and historical layers without reducing its constituent elements to a set of fixed and transhistorical symbols. The study employs a qualitative, historical–interpretive, case-study approach. Its theoretical framework is based on Charles Sanders Peirce’s triadic relationship among the representamen, object, and interpretant, as well as his distinction among icon, index, and symbol. The data corpus consists of authoritative sources on architectural history, studies specifically addressing the Jameh Mosque of Yazd, research on inscriptions and ornamentation, architectural plans, and published visual documentation. The analysis was conducted at three levels: chronology, the sign relations of architectural elements, and the spatial network. Operational criteria were employed to identify iconic, indexical, and symbolic relations. The findings indicate that, within the principal sequence of spatial experience in the mosque, indexical relations play a more fundamental role than isolated symbols in terms of their functional priority and recurrence in orientation, connection, adjacency, and focalization. The entrance portal, threshold, pathway, courtyard, qibla iwan, domed chamber, and mihrab, through their actual positions and spatial connections, organize ritual movement and concentration, whereas inscriptions and the culturally informed recognition of certain elements reinforce symbolic layers of meaning. The historical analysis further demonstrates that the existing network of signification was not formed in a single phase. Muzaffarid interventions, particularly those undertaken in 1375–1376, in the entrance, inscriptions, mihrab, and ornamentation of the principal space are crucial to interpreting the building in its present form. The study’s contribution lies in shifting the unit of analysis from the “element as symbol” to the “relation as sign” and in simultaneously integrating architectural form, the object of signification, interpretive effect, type of sign relation, and historical context.