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.
> 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
It's not. The Gobi is filled with marginal seasonal grazing lands, though certain areas are more valuable than others. It's undergone additional desertification in recent centuries as well.
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.
People in the Gobi, particularly the northern Gobi, don't always (or even usually) travel by way of journeys between oases. That style of travel is more characteristic of silk roads and the deserts to the southwest like the Taklamakan.
If you want to tax nomads showing up to buy tools, you station the tax collectors in the markets they must visit.
This wall doesn't run through market areas. The markets involved would have been farther south in the tangut heartland, southwest in the hexi corridor, or north in Mongolia proper. "Markets" is also a bit of a misleading term here because the Mongolian side of this trade would have been a diffuse network of nomadic groups rather than people inhabiting fixed cities on a landscape.
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?
The parts you're responding to were speaking more specifically about the mongol period, which I know more about. This particular borderland is a somewhat different place a couple centuries earlier.
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.
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:
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.
Basically, I'm saying "what many people think in private discussions" vs "this is what's written in the most cited works". Those can diverge pretty far in small fields like Mongolian archaeology.
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.
One slightly fun perspective is that livestock are mobile refrigerators. Living like that is actually why nomads are able to do well in Mongolia.
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.
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.
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.