Search

The western Umayyad Caliphate and the Fatimid Caliphate of Ifrīqiya, both proclaimed in the tenth century, have been the subject of numerous investigations that have addressed these powers in an autonomous and independent way, despite the obvious parallels between the two. Their rivalry has also been addressed, but always from the point of political, ideological and religious views. Beyond the written sources, they have never confronted the elements of their material culture to deepen the knowledge of the specificities of both caliphates. Especially interesting in this regard should be the comparison of urbanism and architecture of the capitals and administrative centers and power of their respective states. In the mid-tenth century these capitals were Madīnat al-Zahrāʾ (936 or 940) and Ṣabra al-Manṣūriyya (947-48), cities that are practically contemporary, although Madīnat al-Zahrāʾ followed in more than a decade to which it was the first Fatimid caliphal foundation, Mahdiya (921). Indeed, the almost contemporary of processes allows us to propose, at least in a theoretical manner, the relevance of that comparison. Despite the imbalance of our knowledge in favor of Madīnat al-Zahrāʾ, we try to point out the similarities and differences between the two urban projects in areas such as: the deep reasons of its foundation, the implementation strategies in the territory and the infrastructure development, the links to previous metropolis that are located near them (Qurṭuba and Qayrawān), its construction processes and the people of Caliphate environment involve in the project management, the urban topography and interior zoning, the relationship established between the palatial area (quṣūr) as the seat of power and the population of the urban part, the role of the sūq-s, crafts and workshops official manufacturing, the functional division of the respective palaces, the typological characteristics and architecture of its palatial buildings and their aesthetic choices, especially in the field of architectural decoration, but also in other records of material culture. Finally, the function of these two capitals and their role in the Mediterranean area will be evoked. We try to answer several questions among which highlight three. One is to what extent these cities are political expressions of their respective caliphates, and if their occasional architectural and urban transformations also reflect changes in the ideological referents and political programs of those States. Another question is how the obedience and religious rites of each Caliphate (and the different role attributed to the caliph in this context) could have influenced in the ways and mechanisms of representation of power and, therefore, not only in the protocol but also in the architecture of the palace; and finally, if the differences between the two cities can be explained based on the different traditions that have played in its conception and construction and if, beyond these differences, both respond to general principles that can be considered common or characteristic of the "palatial" or "governmental cities." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]