What's Behind the Mysterious Ancient Wall in the Gobi Desert?(news.artnet.com)
news.artnet.com
What's Behind the Mysterious Ancient Wall in the Gobi Desert?
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/the-hunt-gobi-wall-mongolia-2674588
42 comments
That article ends so abruptly and lacking anything you want to know (how was it used for non-defensive purposes?) that I almost wonder if it was written by AI. Hard to tell bad writers from computers anymore.
Computers were, after all, trained on bad writing
Adblock on Chrome isn't working anymore, given the huge luxury watch ads every three paragraph I can't read it as anything but content slop to get ad impressions. Doesn't need to be AI, slop has existed for decades.
That was honestly what made me finally switch back to Firefox after what must have been close to two decades.
Well, that was pretty anticlimactic. Suggest you go read about a more interesting abandoned city in the Gobi Desert instead:
> Built in 1032, the city thrived under the rule of the Tangut-led Western Xia dynasty. It has been identified as the city of Etzina, which appears in The Travels of Marco Polo. ...
> According to a legend of the local Torghut population, in 1372 a Mongol military general named Khara Bator was surrounded with his troops by the armies of the Ming dynasty. Diverting the Ejin River, the city's water source that flowed just outside the fortress, the Ming dynasty denied Khara-Khoto water for its gardens and wells. As time passed and Khara Bator realised his fate, he murdered his family and then himself. After his suicide, Khara Bator's soldiers waited within the fortress until Ming troops finally attacked and killed the remaining inhabitants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khara-Khoto
> Built in 1032, the city thrived under the rule of the Tangut-led Western Xia dynasty. It has been identified as the city of Etzina, which appears in The Travels of Marco Polo. ...
> According to a legend of the local Torghut population, in 1372 a Mongol military general named Khara Bator was surrounded with his troops by the armies of the Ming dynasty. Diverting the Ejin River, the city's water source that flowed just outside the fortress, the Ming dynasty denied Khara-Khoto water for its gardens and wells. As time passed and Khara Bator realised his fate, he murdered his family and then himself. After his suicide, Khara Bator's soldiers waited within the fortress until Ming troops finally attacked and killed the remaining inhabitants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khara-Khoto
Khara Khoto appears to be on or near the extension of the 'Gobi Wall' into present day China, presumably as part of the same system.
https://cms.interestingengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
The name 'Gobi Wall' seems to refer to the section of the wall within Mongolia. Its garrisons and forts are numbered from G01 at the western end of the section, where the wall crosses the border.
https://cdn.grid.id/crop/0x0:0x0/700x0/photo/2025/05/31/land...
Khara Khoto is about 100 km WSW of G01.
https://cms.interestingengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
The name 'Gobi Wall' seems to refer to the section of the wall within Mongolia. Its garrisons and forts are numbered from G01 at the western end of the section, where the wall crosses the border.
https://cdn.grid.id/crop/0x0:0x0/700x0/photo/2025/05/31/land...
Khara Khoto is about 100 km WSW of G01.
> a Mongol military general named Khara Bator
wait is this dude's name basically 'Black Knight'?
wait is this dude's name basically 'Black Knight'?
Even better, it's Black Hero.
I’m guessing this is the source paper?
> https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087
>> This study challenges the perception of such structures as being purely defensive, revealing the Gobi Wall’s multifunctional role as an imperial tool for demarcating boundaries, managing populations and resources, and consolidating territorial control
> https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087
>> This study challenges the perception of such structures as being purely defensive, revealing the Gobi Wall’s multifunctional role as an imperial tool for demarcating boundaries, managing populations and resources, and consolidating territorial control
There's a lot of application of methods in this paper.
However, they're mostly saying there wasn't much in terms of artifacts to be discovered. And it's a wall made from unpolished stones, sand and maybe some wood. There' basically nothing here. They find some coins from 160 CE and then go on to attribute the wall to being built in the 10-13 CE centuries, as was already established.
> This research supports a broader reconceptualization of medieval frontiers—not merely as static defensive barriers, but as dynamic administrative infrastructures. The Gobi Wall exemplifies a mode of Xi Xia statecraft that used architectural investments to manage re-sources, population movement, and territorial boundaries. This understanding aligns with theoretical models framing frontiers as zones of control and interaction, rather than rigid dividing lines [57], and invites broader comparative analysis across Eurasian contexts.
Yeah, they _maybe_ used a big wall they had built for defensive purposes to charge customs.
There are no answers here. I'm sure it's interesting for other archaeologists to study the methods used, but there are no interesting rigid conclusions to be had from reading it.
1. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087
However, they're mostly saying there wasn't much in terms of artifacts to be discovered. And it's a wall made from unpolished stones, sand and maybe some wood. There' basically nothing here. They find some coins from 160 CE and then go on to attribute the wall to being built in the 10-13 CE centuries, as was already established.
> This research supports a broader reconceptualization of medieval frontiers—not merely as static defensive barriers, but as dynamic administrative infrastructures. The Gobi Wall exemplifies a mode of Xi Xia statecraft that used architectural investments to manage re-sources, population movement, and territorial boundaries. This understanding aligns with theoretical models framing frontiers as zones of control and interaction, rather than rigid dividing lines [57], and invites broader comparative analysis across Eurasian contexts.
Yeah, they _maybe_ used a big wall they had built for defensive purposes to charge customs.
There are no answers here. I'm sure it's interesting for other archaeologists to study the methods used, but there are no interesting rigid conclusions to be had from reading it.
1. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087
Surely the answer is "the other side of the Gobi Desert".
Why did the chicken cross the Gobi wall?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that low walls like this weren't really about defense, they were about funneling travelers (with carts) to the tax collectors.
What would the point be, in the Gobi desert?
The structure of traveling through that is that you follow the silk road between a bunch of major cities built around oases. It's not necessary to divert anyone with walls - the fact that they need to drink, and that they won't be willing to wander off into the desert, get lost, and die, is sufficient. You don't move people to the tax collectors. You move the tax collectors to them.
The structure of traveling through that is that you follow the silk road between a bunch of major cities built around oases. It's not necessary to divert anyone with walls - the fact that they need to drink, and that they won't be willing to wander off into the desert, get lost, and die, is sufficient. You don't move people to the tax collectors. You move the tax collectors to them.
Are you thinking of the Taklamakan? People wander around the Gobi as a way of life. It's not quite as extreme as you're painting it.
In any case, the traditional routes for the northern silk roads passed south of these walls through the Hexi corridor, at least until the Mongol period when many of them rerouted through the Orkhon valley north of the Gobi. Separate from the silk roads, there was a lot of trade/conflict between the northern Chinese states and the various Mongolian polities like the Liao. Managing that was both economically and existentially necessary for the border states like the xixia.
Also, nomads usually moved to the tax collectors instead of the other way around. More practical that way.
In any case, the traditional routes for the northern silk roads passed south of these walls through the Hexi corridor, at least until the Mongol period when many of them rerouted through the Orkhon valley north of the Gobi. Separate from the silk roads, there was a lot of trade/conflict between the northern Chinese states and the various Mongolian polities like the Liao. Managing that was both economically and existentially necessary for the border states like the xixia.
Also, nomads usually moved to the tax collectors instead of the other way around. More practical that way.
> Are you thinking of the Taklamakan? People wander around the Gobi as a way of life. It's not quite as extreme as you're painting it.
Perhaps, but I'll note that the pictures in the article show the region as being easily that extreme, and the words say this:
>> large sections [of the wall] were built near sand dunes that would have acted as additional barriers
> Also, nomads usually moved to the tax collectors instead of the other way around. More practical that way.
That's different in no way from what I stated above. If you want to tax people crossing the desert, you station the tax collectors at the oases all travelers must visit.
If you want to tax nomads showing up to buy tools, you station the tax collectors in the markets they must visit.
These are both cases of moving the tax collector to the people being taxed. And in both cases, there's not an alternative. You can't direct the people to go visit the tax collector; they won't follow your instructions. What would be in it for them?
Perhaps, but I'll note that the pictures in the article show the region as being easily that extreme, and the words say this:
>> large sections [of the wall] were built near sand dunes that would have acted as additional barriers
> Also, nomads usually moved to the tax collectors instead of the other way around. More practical that way.
That's different in no way from what I stated above. If you want to tax people crossing the desert, you station the tax collectors at the oases all travelers must visit.
If you want to tax nomads showing up to buy tools, you station the tax collectors in the markets they must visit.
These are both cases of moving the tax collector to the people being taxed. And in both cases, there's not an alternative. You can't direct the people to go visit the tax collector; they won't follow your instructions. What would be in it for them?
Perhaps, but I'll note that the pictures in the article show the region as being easily that extreme, and the words say this
That's different in no way from what I stated above. If you want to tax people crossing the desert, you station the tax collectors at the oases all travelers must visit.
If you want to tax nomads showing up to buy tools, you station the tax collectors in the markets they must visit.
I'm not emphasizing this for pedantic reasons. This wall is generally thought to have been intended as a very literal manifestation of the boundaries of the state and this whole area is what we call a borderlands. Western xia itself is a bit of a borderland in its entirety, and probably found it pretty useful to lay out a very physical manifestation of their power everyone could see. That's not the only reason something like this would have been built, but it's a relevant one.
Medieval states were constantly negotiating the boundaries of power before everyone accepted the modern notion of statehood. Physical walls were a particularly popular way to make that point in what's now China.
And in both cases, there's not an alternative. You can't direct the people to go visit the tax collector; they won't follow your instructions. What would be in it for them?
But anyway, the mistake here is thinking in a modern transactional framework. That's not how (mongol-era) Mongolia worked. Hierarchy was based on personal loyalty networks. A vassal provided loyalty, which could include taxes. Disloyalty was swiftly punished if the lord could, or the loyalty arrangement was renegotiated to something more agreeable. If it sounds like a fragile way to run a continent-spanning empire, you've identified one of the issues the Mongols faced
Similar things existed outside Mongolia as well, but Wikipedia's going to be as good or better than what I know on the subject.
> I'm not emphasizing this for pedantic reasons. This wall is generally thought to have been intended as a very literal manifestation of the boundaries of the state and this whole area is what we call a borderlands. Western xia itself is a bit of a borderland in its entirety, and probably found it pretty useful to lay out a very physical manifestation of their power everyone could see. That's not the only reason something like this would have been built, but it's the most relevant one.
I have no problem with that. But it's unrelated to the idea I criticized, that the purpose of a wall like this is to funnel travelers with carts into a taxable chokepoint. A wall is not useful for that purpose. This wall is even less useful for that purpose than average.
I will note that the paper seems to disagree with you on what is generally thought of the wall:
>> This study challenges the perception of such structures as being purely defensive, revealing the Gobi Wall’s multifunctional role as an imperial tool for demarcating boundaries
But in this case, I'm inclined to believe you over the paper.
(I am curious about the fact that the wall was manned. That has to have been really expensive; it seems like it wouldn't be worth it for a mostly symbolic wall?)
> It's not [that extreme]. The Gobi is filled with marginal seasonal grazing lands
That doesn't really matter to the question of whether travelers attempting to cross it risk getting lost and dying if they go offroad. They're not traveling with a herd of sheep. They can't eat the odd patch of dusty grass, or find water.
And when the article notes that the wall seems to have been constructed in a way that specifically takes advantage of local sand dunes, that also suggests an inhospitable environment to me.
I have no problem with that. But it's unrelated to the idea I criticized, that the purpose of a wall like this is to funnel travelers with carts into a taxable chokepoint. A wall is not useful for that purpose. This wall is even less useful for that purpose than average.
I will note that the paper seems to disagree with you on what is generally thought of the wall:
>> This study challenges the perception of such structures as being purely defensive, revealing the Gobi Wall’s multifunctional role as an imperial tool for demarcating boundaries
But in this case, I'm inclined to believe you over the paper.
(I am curious about the fact that the wall was manned. That has to have been really expensive; it seems like it wouldn't be worth it for a mostly symbolic wall?)
> It's not [that extreme]. The Gobi is filled with marginal seasonal grazing lands
That doesn't really matter to the question of whether travelers attempting to cross it risk getting lost and dying if they go offroad. They're not traveling with a herd of sheep. They can't eat the odd patch of dusty grass, or find water.
And when the article notes that the wall seems to have been constructed in a way that specifically takes advantage of local sand dunes, that also suggests an inhospitable environment to me.
The paper generally agrees with what I'm saying. There's some impedance mismatch because I'm doing a sort of translation I do when explaining things to tech coworkers rather than using the words I'd use for another archaeologist, but quoting their conclusion:
As for getting lost, basically not an issue for various reasons. More of an issue for non nomads.
This research supports a broader reconceptualization of medieval frontiers—not merely as static defensive barriers, but as dynamic administrative infrastructures. The Gobi Wall exemplifies a mode of Xi Xia statecraft that used architectural investments to manage re-sources, population movement, and territorial boundaries. This understanding aligns with theoretical models framing frontiers as zones of control and interaction, rather than rigid dividing lines [57], and invites broader comparative analysis across Eurasian contexts.
That doesn't really matter to the question of whether travelers attempting to cross it risk getting lost and dying if they go offroad. They're not traveling with a herd of sheep. They can't eat the odd patch of dusty grass, or find water.
As for getting lost, basically not an issue for various reasons. More of an issue for non nomads.
Unless maybe the point of the wall was to provide the road marker itself that guided folks to the nearest survival point? The article mentions there were frequent wells and encampments, but so few other details
> The article mentions there were frequent wells and encampments
They aren't arguing that wells were dug to support the wall garrison. They're arguing that, because the wall needed to be garrisoned, it could only visit places where there were or could be wells:
>> our spatial and ecological analysis demonstrates that the distribution of local resources, such as water and wood, was critical in determining the route of the wall and the placement of associated garrisons and forts.
( https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087 )
They aren't arguing that wells were dug to support the wall garrison. They're arguing that, because the wall needed to be garrisoned, it could only visit places where there were or could be wells:
>> our spatial and ecological analysis demonstrates that the distribution of local resources, such as water and wood, was critical in determining the route of the wall and the placement of associated garrisons and forts.
( https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087 )
If only you could go back and tell them what a waste those walls are! I’m sure the Mongolians would value your expertise.
I'm not criticizing the Mongols ("Mongolians"?) for building a pointless "line up here" wall. I'm pointing out that that's not something they did, and criticizing jpollock for suggesting it was.
> I'm pointing out that that's not something they did
Well that settles it then!
Well that settles it then!
Source?
[deleted]
Any time you build a series of forts (for any reason) you end up
creating commerce and trading. You also end up many times with towns. Even if it was not the original intent. Although the article seems to just randomly end, I assume that’s where it was headed.
Does it exist? I could not find a wikipedia article about it. This Gobi Wall can not be a part of what is known as the Great Wall of China as it was built 5 centuries later, no? Can someone explain?
The Great Wall is just part of a larger series of fortifications in eastern Central Asia. One of the others is the less studied Medieval Wall System (MWS). The gobi wall here is a few hundred kilometers of one of the individual walls within the MWS, which as the name suggests is within the gobi desert in the modern country of Mongolia.
And just to preclude the usual follow-up, these walls probably weren't major defensive fortifications intended to keep out armies of nomadic raiders. Their primary function was closer to airport customs, visible outposts that reinforce the boundaries and laws of the state.
And just to preclude the usual follow-up, these walls probably weren't major defensive fortifications intended to keep out armies of nomadic raiders. Their primary function was closer to airport customs, visible outposts that reinforce the boundaries and laws of the state.
From a/the related paper:
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087
> The Medieval (10th to 13th century CE) Wall System (MWS) stretches approximately 4000 km across extensive regions in northern China and Mongolia, as well as shorter sections in Russia (Figure 1). It represents one of the most extensive yet enigmatic architectural features in East Asia. In recent years The Wall Project, funded by the European Research Council, as well as other projects, has extensively studied and published on different sections of this wall line. Such research demonstrated that this extensive system of earthen walls was built by different empires from c. the 10th to the 13th centuries CE [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Among the different sections of the MWS, the wall section located in the southern Mongolia’s Gobi Desert is the least explored and still poorly understood. This study focuses on a 321 km-long segment of this wall line, located in Ömnögovi province of Mongolia, that we refer to as the Gobi Wall (Figure 2).
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1087
> The Medieval (10th to 13th century CE) Wall System (MWS) stretches approximately 4000 km across extensive regions in northern China and Mongolia, as well as shorter sections in Russia (Figure 1). It represents one of the most extensive yet enigmatic architectural features in East Asia. In recent years The Wall Project, funded by the European Research Council, as well as other projects, has extensively studied and published on different sections of this wall line. Such research demonstrated that this extensive system of earthen walls was built by different empires from c. the 10th to the 13th centuries CE [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Among the different sections of the MWS, the wall section located in the southern Mongolia’s Gobi Desert is the least explored and still poorly understood. This study focuses on a 321 km-long segment of this wall line, located in Ömnögovi province of Mongolia, that we refer to as the Gobi Wall (Figure 2).
I don't know, looks like hunting walls to me. When chased, animals naturally follow such walls, however insignificant they are (sometimes they follow even a line drawn on the grass), and get onto predictable trajectory leading them into ambush.
I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. Nothing about these walls resembles desert kites that I can see, except that they both use natural materials in an arid climate.
As a child growing up in Central Asia, I saw people piling up stones, sticks, and other debris along the ancient lines people used to control herds and wild animals.
The ones built for hunting often had a narrow, funnel-like end, while those meant for managing herds could take on almost any shape.
One of the photos in that article looks exactly like the walls I remember from my childhood.
Yeah, but it's an overkill 2m wide and doesn't have a funnel, nor does it use the topography well for kite. And the fortification is a 100m+ square.
Like I said, the materials are similar. The design isn't.
Like I said, the materials are similar. The design isn't.
Ontology in the 21st century: no wikipedia page means non-existence :-)
It is at least a good warning that you might be reading an AI hallucination, and should do further research.
It is also a good warning that the people who typically create and edit Wikipedia articles in your local language do not find the subject interesting or are prevented from effectively documenting it due to the language barrier. I was doing research on the history of a certain illness and one physician I was investigating did not have an English Wikipedia article. Of course this does not mean he did not exist, I found him later on the Russian Wikipedia: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0....
I cannot find an article about this wall even on the Chinese Wikipedia but Baidu Encyclopedia has one: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%A5%BF%E5%A4%8F%E9%95%BF%E5%...
I cannot find an article about this wall even on the Chinese Wikipedia but Baidu Encyclopedia has one: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%A5%BF%E5%A4%8F%E9%95%BF%E5%...
[deleted]