2000 years span the beginning and end of the construction period of the wall. The Wall was often built along the mountain ridges for a better defense. Without advanced technology like today, bricks used to build the Wall were carried by labors and ox carts from the foot of the mountain, which cost a great manpower and money. A lot of labors died because of the heavy work load. The walls are the main bodies of the China Great Wall,and Emperor Qin Shihuang's contribution to the design of the Wall is considered to be of great importance as it ensured peace for the people in the northern part of China against the Huns and established a pattern of defense for future generations. The Great Wall of the Qin Dynasty was built at the expense of many lives.This paper examines the history of the wall and the design and architectural nuances of the wall as present in existing literature.

People have built walls for thousands of years to protect cities, to divide cities and along the borders of polities. This paper examines this process to place modern walls in a historical context and to ask in what ways is modern wall building similar and different from earlier walls. For most of human history, people primarily built walls as military technology. The European invention of cannon in the 16th century radically changed global wall construction. The further development of artillery in the late 19th century as well as tanks and aircraft in the 20th essentially made walls obsolete as military technology. Within cities, walls defined and elaborated ethnic and religious differences but this custom also declined in the 19th century to be revived in the second half of the 20th century. Many walled cites such as Carcassonne in France and long walls such as the Great Wall of China and Hadrian’s Wall in England are important parts of global heritage. Modern walls largely lack the military emphasis of earlier walls but retain the power to define, assert, protect, and ultimately polarize radical, ethnic, religious and national identities.

Town walls have always played a critical role in shaping the identities and images of the communities they embrace. Today, the surviving fabric of urban defences and the townscapes they define are features of heritage holding great potential as cultural resources but, in management terms, pose substantial challenges, practical and philosophical. Town walls can be conceptualised as a ‘dissonant’ form of heritage whose value is frequently contested between different interest groups and whose meanings are not static but can be re-written. Evidence is gathered from walled towns across Europe, including member towns of the WTFC (Walled Towns Friendship Circle [now European Walled Towns EWT]) and inscribed UNESCO World Heritage Sites, to explore the cyclical biographies of town walls in their transformation from civic monuments, through phases of neglect, decay and destruction to their current status as cherished cultural resources. To explore this area of interface between archaeology and tourism studies, the varying attitudes of populations and heritage agencies to walled heritage are reviewed through examination of policies of conservation, preservation, presentation and restoration. Areas of commonality are thus identified.

Town walls have always played a critical role in shaping the identities and images of the communities they embrace. Today, the surviving fabric of urban defences and the townscapes they define are features of heritage holding great potential as cultural resources but, in management terms, pose substantial challenges, practical and philosophical. Town walls can be conceptualised as a ‘dissonant’ form of heritage whose value is frequently contested between different interest groups and whose meanings are not static but can be re-written. Evidence is gathered from walled towns across Europe, including member towns of the WTFC (Walled Towns Friendship Circle) and inscribed UNESCO World Heritage Sites, to explore the cyclical biographies of town walls in their transformation from civic monuments, through phases of neglect, decay and destruction to their current status as cherished cultural resources. To explore this area of interface between archaeology and tourism studies, the varying attitudes of populations and heritage agencies to walled heritage are reviewed through examination of policies of conservation, preservation, presentation and restoration. Areas of commonality are thus identified.

1st International Symposium on SEOUL HISTORIC CITY and CITY WALLS

The construction of urban defences was one of the hallmarks of the late Roman and late antique periods (AD 300–600) throughout the Western and Eastern Empire. While a number of cities already had existing urban defences, most urban centres seem to have been entirely unfortifed prior to late antiquity; however, between the third and sixth centuries AD, the situation changed drastically, with walled circuits of varying types and designs being erected in many cities throughout the Roman world (Sarantis 2013a, 256). This included not only the imperial and provincial capitals but also smaller cities and towns. In Gaul, for example, some 85% of the 125 largely undefended towns were provided with walls through the third, fourth, and into the ffth centuries (Bachrach 2010, 38 with bibliography). That city walls were the most signifcant construction proMects of their time and that they redefned the urban landscape cannot therefore be understated. In both the West and the East of the Empire, many cities followed a reduced course, excluding large sections of the existing imperial city (e.g. Bordeaux, Pergamon, Sagalassos, and Hierapolis). Moreover, their appearance and monumental scale (varied as they may be), as well as the cost of labour and material, are easily comparable to proMects from the High Empire; however, urban circuits provided late antique towns with new means of self-representation and represent one of the most important urban initiatives of the period. To-date, research on city walls has highlighted chronological and regional variations, enabling scholars to rethink how and why urban circuits were built and how they functioned in late antiquity. Scholarship also has sought to question traditional historical narratives of barbarian invasions and instead shown that benefaction, civic pride, availability of military labour, or a combination of these, alongside defence, acted as powerful motivations for the construction of city walls (see Laurence et al. 2011, 141– 169, for arguments about urban status; Dey 2011, 112–121, for a discussion of the motivation for the Aurelian Wall in Rome and the various factors involved in its construction, including defence, prestige, and the undertaking of a largescale public work to aid in the stability of Aurelian’s regime in the capital). Although these developments have made a signifcant contribution to the understanding of late antique city walls, studies are often concerned with one single monument, small groups of monuments, or a particular region. As a result, broader perspectives, especially those that consider walls from both the Western and Eastern parts of the Empire, are still lacking and therefore create an artifcial divide between East and West. This divide appears to have been well established already in the 1s, when fortifcations experienced a surge of interest in scholarly literature. In this respect, the summary works of Johnson (1983) and Lander (1984), which cover up to the fourth century AD, can be considered as indicative of this. While the former is mostly concerned with case studies from the West, Lander focuses his attentiun to the East. That this tendency still persists is refected by the excellent bibliographic reviews (on ‘West’, ‘East’, and ‘Africa’) written by Sarantis and Christie (Sarantis and Christie 2013, Sarantis 2013a, 2013b) in the volume edited by the same scholars on ‘War and Warfare in Late Antiquity’. Despite the fact that single-site and regional approaches ....