We visited this “about-to-be-inscribed” T List site in May 2018 and arrived at much the same conclusions about it as Zoe has since reported. Having viewed several recent TV programs which had included it, we had great hopes, but in the end it disappointed - the "on show" reality doesn't live up to the "vision" (partly because of the way it was presented) even if you try hard to add your own imagination. The Museum, however, is excellent, both architecturally and in terms of its contents - we probably gave it as much time as the site.

Entrance to the museum and site is, in theory, free only to EU citizens (but only Eur 1.50 otherwise). We were asked our nationality and this was recorded by the desk clerk. The entrance hall contains a number of (open and unused) guichets as if there was/is an intention at some time to charge more general entry fees. We asked if the impending inscription might mean that charges for all would be introduced and were told that the management hadn’t decided yet. The bus costs Eur 2.50 return with a reduction to 1.50 for “jubilados”. The road up to the site IS public and turns off to a restaurant and the monastery of San Geronimo a short way before the small site car park which is blocked by an electronic barrier which only staff and buses can open.

The naming of the site as it is to be inscribed has been somewhat "problematic". The T List title created in 2015 was simply “Madinat al-Zahra” - and that is what appears on the entrance sign at the museum and throughout all the other on-site documentation. For some reason however, Spain nominated it as “The Caliphate City of Medina Azahara” (reverting to the earlier T List name from 1998). Indeed our local B+B owner mentioned “they have changed the name” when we discussed the upcoming inscription. But this doesn’t seem to have entirely pleased ICOMOS who, in Dec 2017, asked for “further information regarding the name of the property”. It has ultimately recommended that “the name of the property be modified in order to keep the historical name to become “The Caliphate City of Madīnat al-Zahrā’”. Quite what subtle overt or subliminal messages are being sent/implied by these alternative names isn’t clear to me! Presumably arguments over "authenticity" play some part?

Whether it was because of long term restoration work or because the site was being “tarted up” ready for inscription I don’t know but, during our visit, the “Rich Hall” of Abd al-Rahman III was blocked off to visitors by ropes across the path - as were the gardens beyond it. This hall, which has been reconstructed and roofed, contains decorated pillars and arches in alternate red/marble similar to those in the Cordoba Mezquita - but only one arch high. This, unfortunately, is a highlight of Madinat al-Zahra and not being able to see it was a bit of a "downer".

The rest of the site is much less “spectacular”. It has vast areas (almost 90% of the site apparently) which are un-excavated. So we could only look down upon the partially excavated Grand Mosque but could see enough to make out that it is the only building not to follow the strict orthogonal layout of the palace area – presumably in order to correctly face Mecca. Much of what was the "Medina" (as opposed to the "Palace") lies completely un-excavated beyond - it will be interesting to see where the boundaries of the site are placed. Encroaching developments in the villages onto to what might seem to be "fields" have been a concern and explain both why the visitor centre is so far away and why it has been given such a "low" profile physically. From the Palace area, the city of Cordoba (both its old buildings and its "out of town" developments) can be made out in the distance across still reasonable, albeit reducing, "countryside". The site's location in relation to Cordoba. in terms of both distance and height. was important to the Caliphs.

Within the main “tourist route” through the palace area there are a lot of blank, partially reconstructed, walls around 1 - 2 metres high with floors of rough pebbles and notices stating things like “these were the servants quarters” - well they could have been anything! There are also a number of reconstructed decorated arches such as those of the “Grand Portico” but many of them have been reconstructed using largely “unauthentic” material plus just a few original pieces (photo). And, as Zoe says - having gone to all the trouble of producing a CGI video which animates the visit of a Christian King to the Caliph (possibly based on that by the Christian king of Leon - Ordono IV in 962) and traces the route taken by his entourage, the areas where they had to wait etc etc, one might have hoped that the tourist path would have more clearly have related its route to that video.