# Earliest evidence for the use of desert kite mass-hunting structures in southeastern Jordan during the late pre-pottery neolithic B

Mohammad Tarawneh, Olivier Barge, Jacques Élie Brochier, Rémy Crassard, Cheryl A Makarewicz, Isabela Oltra-Carrió, Fiona Pichon, Frank Preusser, Emmanuelle Régagnon, Juan Antonio Sánchez Priego, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Mohammad Tarawneh, Olivier Barge, Jacques Élie Brochier, Rémy Crassard, Cheryl A Makarewicz, et al. Earliest evidence for the use of desert kite mass-hunting structures in southeastern Jordan during the late pre-pottery neolithic B. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2026, 18 (3), pp.40. 10.1007/s12520-026-02409-5. hal-05490840

HAL Id: hal-05490840

https://hal.science/hal-05490840v1

Submitted on 3 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Earliest evidence for the use of desert kite mass-hunting structures in southeastern Jordan during the late pre-pottery neolithic B

Mohammad Tarawneh<fnref n="1" /> · Olivier Barge<fnref n="2" /> · Jacques Élie Brochier<fnref n="3" /> · Rémy Crassard<fnref n="2" /> · Cheryl A. Makarewicz<fnref n="4" /> ·

Isabela Oltra-Carrió<fnref n="2" /> · Fiona Pichon<fnref n="2" /> · Frank Preusser<fnref n="5" /> · Emmanuelle Régagnon<fnref n="2" /> · Juan Antonio Sánchez Priego<fnref n="2" /> ·

Wael Abu-Azizeh<fnref n="2" />

Received: 23 May 2025 / Accepted: 6 January 2026

© The Author(s) 2026

## Abstract

Desert kites – large-scale stone structures used for mass game hunting – are among the most extensive prehistoric constructions in the Middle East. Despite their ubiquity, the chronology of their emergence has long remained unresolved. This study presents the earliest direct and robust evidence for the construction and use of desert kites, based on integrated radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of three kites from a single chain in Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, southeastern Jordan. Excavations focused on the cell-like features around kite enclosures, revealed to be deep pit-traps. Bayesian modeling of 28 dates (10 radiocarbon, 18 OSL) places the highest probabilities of construction of these structures firmly within the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (LPPNB), during the second half of the 8th mill. cal BCE. These findings firmly place kite use as a parallel, indigenous developments in the arid east roughly coinciding with the inhabitation of large agro-pastoralist settlements in the Jordanian highlands to the west, reflecting the mosaicked nature of Neolithic developments that characterized the southern Levant already for two millennia. They support a model of indigenous development by highly organized hunter-forager groups inhabiting the arid margins of the southern Levant. The scale, planning, and ecological knowledge embedded in kite architecture produced food in abundance while also supporting novel forms of social organization. The results reposition desert kites as a distinct form of early landscape modification and hunting architecture. The Jibal al-Khashabiyeh data thus anchor a transformative hunting tradition in deep time, offering a new lens on Neolithic innovation beyond the “Fertile Crescent” core.

**Keywords** Desert kites · Mass-hunting · PPNB · Chronometric dating · Southern levant

## Introduction

Desert kites (or simply ‘kites’) are archaeological structures composed of stone alignments and/or elongated low walls forming driving lines converging towards an enclosure surrounded by circular cell-like features. They are spatially expansive structures as their driving lines are often several hundred meters long (up to 5 km in length), converging towards enclosures measuring several tens of meters in diameter, with surface areas covering thousands of square meters (with a median size within the larger region of 1 ha). Kites thus constitute some of the largest stone constructions in the now arid landscapes of the Middle East and southwestern Asia. Their geographical distribution extends from western Saudi Arabia, through Jordan, the Sinai and Negev (where they adopt slightly simpler forms), Syria, Turkey, Armenia and as far as Kazakhstan (Adams et al. 1977;

<footnote>Wael Abu-Azizeh
w.abu-azizeh@univ-lyon2.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ The Nabataean Centre for Archaeological Studies, Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, Wadi Musa, Jordan</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Archéorient – UMR 5133, CNRS & Université Lumière Lyon 2, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ LAMPEA – UMR 7269, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Institute for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, University of Kiel, Kiel 24118, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Freiburg, Freiburg 79104, Germany</footnote>
Parr et al. 1978; Perevolotsky and Baharav 1991; Eddy and Wendorf 1999; Betts and Yagodin 2000; Van Berg et al. 2004; Holzer et al. 2010; Nadel et al. 2010, 2013; Bar-Oz et al. 2011a; Kennedy 2011, 2012; Kempe and Al-Malabeh 2013; Zeder et al. 2013; Brochier et al. 2014; Iamoni 2014; Morandi Bonacossi 2014; Barge et al. 2015b, 2016; Crassard et al. 2015; Betts and Burke 2021; Chambrade and Betts 2021; Barge et al. 2022; Repper et al. 2022). While new occurrences of desert kites are regularly found, primarily through remote sensing, the current count now exceeds 6,700 structures identified to date (Barge et al. 2025).

Desert kites have been identified as early as the beginning of the 20th century by airplane pilots flying over the Near Eastern desert landscapes. These structures are enormous, yet so integrated into the rugged terrain and desert stone-hewn landscapes that they are best recognized and understood from the air. However, it is only since the late 1980s that proper scientific investigation of these constructions has begun, targeting their function and age in the various regions where they have been identified, through remote sensing, mapping and ground surveys. Only very recently has research started to consider the “phenomenon” of desert kites in its broader geographical scope, addressing questions such as the significance of morphological variability according to spatio-typological distribution, and the diffusion of techniques through time and space (Barge et al. 2015a, b, 2020, 2023; Crassard et al. 2015; see also the *Globalkites* project webpage: https://www.globalkites.fr/). This research has developed in parallel through the study of kites at a local micro-regional scale within specific geographical windows, and more systematic excavations have been undertaken in this framework. At that stage, indeed, excavations became essential to make significant progress in our understanding of these spectacular structures.

Several hypotheses have been suggested concerning the function of desert kites. Besides the marginal interpretation of structures related to a defensive function (Maitland 1927), the two common interpretations were related to a use as enclosures for domesticates (Rees 1929; Echallier and Braemer 1995; Jabbūr et al. 1995) or as hunting traps (Poidebard 1928, 1934; Meshel 1974; Rosen and Perevolotsky 1998; Holzer et al. 2010; Bar-Oz et al. 2011a, b). Although a broad consensus has emerged within the scientific community in support of the hunting interpretation, this view has long been supported by limited factual evidence, leading to ongoing debates about this functional interpretation (e.g. Svizzero and Tisdell 2018a, b). However, in-depth studies of desert kites, both across their wider regional distribution and at a local scale, allowed to argue conclusively in favor of the hunting function, effectively ruling out alternative hypotheses (Crassard et al. 2022a; Abu-Azizeh et al. 2021; Abu-Azizeh and Tarawneh 2015). The array of

evidence includes interpretation of the layout and construction technique of the structures, their topographical setting and orientation within the landscape according to animal ethology and behavior, the size of the enclosures, and comparisons with other known examples of hunting structures from a wide range of geographical and chronological contexts. Amongst these arguments, the evidence provided by the excavation of the cell-like features located around the enclosures of the desert kites is most compelling as they turned out to be deep pits dug into the substratum, hence their designation as pit-traps.

Although kites are generally understood to have been part of an arid region ‘toolkit’ for millennia, with structures of presumably similar shape and organization even used until recent times (Chambrade and Betts 2021), the temporal and geospatial origins of this technical innovation remain unresolved. The earliest construction and use of the kites has long been hypothesized as an early Neolithic development dating to the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (LPPNB) (Helms and Betts 1987; Betts 1998; ca. 7500–7000 BCE), based on lithics recovered from surface collections within kite structures, as well as on evidence from hunting campsites at the site of Dhuweila that were believed to be associated with kites. But the ambiguity of the stratigraphic relationship between the structures themselves called into question such an early chronology, while alternatively the hypothesis of an emergence of kites as a later Bronze Age development associated with urban provisioning has also been proposed (e.g., Betts 2014; Zeder and Bar-Oz 2014). Recent research on kites in the Sinai, Negev, and Syria suggests later chronological framework for kites, with both radiometric and relative dating methods indicating kite use from the 4th to the 2nd millennium BCE (i.e. Chalcolithic and/or Early Bronze Age) (Eddy and Wendorf 1999; Holzer et al. 2010: 812–813 and Table 1; Nadel et al. 2010, 2013: Fig. 4, 2021: Fig. 8.21, 2024: Fig. 4; Bar-Oz et al. 2011a: 5, b: 213; for a comprehensive review of this evidence see also Zeder et al. 2013: 121 and Table 1).

To date, the evidence for Neolithic construction and use of kites in the Levant is relatively scant. Kites located in the Palmyra steppe suggests use of kites as early as the Late Neolithic (Morandi Bonacossi 2014: 37), although the dating evidence derives from relative chronology rather than direct radiometric dating of the desert kite structures themselves. The kite of Nahal Eshel located in the Negev, has provided the oldest chronological date determined by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) among the Negev and Sinai group, suggesting construction during the Late Neolithic (5730±480 and 5460±680 BCE) (Nadel et al. 2024: 5 and Fig. 4).

An even older chonology may be attributed to a kite located in southeastern Jordan, at Jibal al-Ghadiwiyat, approximately 50 km southwest of the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh
area (Abu-Azizeh and Tarawneh 2015). Experimental rock surface luminescence dating suggests an age range of 9800±800 years ago (Al Khasawneh et al. 2019), but the experimental nature of the methodology used, the limited number of samples from which this chronological assessment was derived, and inconsistencies among the ages obtained for different samples warrant caution in interpreting the temporal depth of these results.

New excavations carried out on a single chain of kites located in the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh area, in the southeastern desert of Jordan, offer a new opportunity to apply a rigorous, integrated dating program to further investigate the temporal depth of kite construction and use in the Levant. Here, we report the first direct and robust evidence for the earliest chronology of desert kites to date, based on radiometric determinations measured from charcoals further complemented by OSL.

## Regional setting

The study area of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh is located in the presently hyper-arid desert of southeastern Jordan, some 70 km east of the modern village of Al-Jafr (Fig. 1). The Jibal al-Khashabiyeh hills, rising to a maximum altitude of 1000 m a.s.l., form the eastern boundary of the vast Qa' al-Jafr depression, which constitutes the remnants of a paleolake (Davies 2005; Mischke et al. 2015). Within the

study area, a high plateau dominates the eastern landscape, while to the west, it is interrupted by an escarpment running roughly north-south (Fig. 2). Although the general slope of the plateau descends towards the east, the escarpment itself is dissected by a significant hydrographic network flowing westward and draining into the Jafr depression. Erosional processes in this transitional zone between plateau and piedmont have shaped a series of natural, amphitheater-like geomorphological depressions at the heads of the wadis.

Previous research had already identified kite structures in the southeastern desert of Jordan (Abu-Azizeh and Tarawneh 2015; Tarawneh et al. 2017a, b), far from their previously known primary concentration in the basaltic terrain (Arabic: *harra*) of southern Syria and northeastern Jordan (Helms and Betts 1987; Echallier and Braemer 1995; Betts 1998; Kempe and Al-Malabeh 2010a, b, 2012; Kenney 2011), thereby expanding our understanding of desert kite distribution (Fig. 1).

The chain of kites identified in the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh area (Abu-Azizeh et al. 2021) extends over 17 km following a north-south axis (Fig. 2). Composed of nine kites (labelled JKSH 01 to 09), each display their opening towards the plateau to the east with driving lines converging westward

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Map of the southern Levant showing distribution of desert kites (red dots) and the study area of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh (red rectangle) in southeastern Jordan</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Map of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh study area showing the chain of nine desert kites identified along the escarpment of the plateau</figcaption></figure>
towards the edge of the plateau at the escarpment (Fig. 3). The nine kites are each marked by a variable number of driving lines, ranging from a minimum of two to as many as ten distinct walls or wall segments, directed toward the western convergence point. Their length is considerable, reaching up to approximately 3.5 km in the cases of kites JKSH 01 and JKSH 04. The driving lines of the different kites are almost interconnected, forming a seemingly continuous “chain” along the western edge of the limestone plateau.

The kites of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh are characterized by a specific layout and overall organization (Abu-Azizeh and Tarawneh 2015; Tarawneh et al. 2017b; Abu-Azizeh et al. 2021). The driving lines are broadly open on the eastern plateau and progressively narrow as they extend westward. As they descend the first slope, the orientation of the lines shifts, forming an increasingly elongated funnel. The corridor-like configuration culminates in a pronounced topographical break at the escarpment, where the walls meet the kite enclosure, which is strategically placed within one of the natural, amphitheatre-like geomorphological depressions shaped by erosion. A typical feature of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh kites is the pronounced curvature of the funnel at the approach of the final convergence point. This particular

organization was likely designed to exploit the terrain, placing the enclosure within the amphitheatre-like geomorphological depressions at the outlet of the narrow funnel formed by the driving lines.

The construction methods of the kite walls vary depending on the availability of raw material, as well as to the distance from the enclosure. The further east one moves (toward the wide, open end of the funnel), the less substantial the driving line walls become. When they define the widely open funnel on the flattish landscape of the plateau, the driving lines are often very slimsy, made of small amounts of small stones delineating an alignment of no more than 20 to 30 cm high and about 40 cm width. As the driving lines approach the escarpment edge, they become more clearly defined and constructed using greater amounts of stones that display a better masonry organization. Typically, the narrow, corridor-like funnel of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh kites are made of solid walls exceeding 40 cm in height, often built with double-faced masonry and neatly arranged standing stones. The care in construction is even more obvious as it concerns the final western segments of the kites (the enclosures), where the volume of stone used is significantly greater, and walls commonly exceed 60 cm in height.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3 Detail of the nine desert kites identified in Jibal al-Khashabiyeh area</figcaption></figure>
# Materials and methods

## Characterization of the excavated desert kites

Amongst the nine kites identified at Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, only three showed clear remains of a polygonal enclosure at the final convergence point of the driving lines: JKSH 01, JKSH 04 and JKSH 07. Such enclosures very likely existed at the other kites in the chain, but their location within wadi beds means they are now either invisible, buried beneath sediment, and/or have been totally destroyed by the combined effects of erosion and anthropic reuse (Abu-Azizeh and Tarawneh 2015: 102–104). These enclosures are of a characteristic star-shaped plan. The excavations therefore targeted these best preserved 3 kites focusing on circular cell-like features located around the enclosures of each of these three kites.

### Kite JKSH 01

Kite JKSH 01 is one of the three examples where the presence of an enclosure has been clearly evidenced at the convergence point of driving lines (Fig. 4). This enclosure,

situated in a natural erosion gully, follows a characteristic star-shaped layout. It is marked by the presence of at least five circular structures, three to five meters in diameter, clearly identifiable at the surface, connected by curved stone walls. Only the portions located on the upper slope, overlooking the erosion gully, are preserved, while the lower sections of the enclosure have completely disappeared.

The particularity of kite JKSH 01 is that it associates two systems of converging walls, one oriented towards the east (JKSH 01a), and the other towards the west (JKSH 01b), with a single enclosure located at the center. This is a highly unusual configuration, with no known parallels. It is difficult to define if such a layout indicates a reuse of an earlier kite structure (with a change in orientation), or if it reflects a system which could have been used as a consistent complex. Two circular structures of the enclosure have been excavated: St.01 and St.10.

### Kite JKSH 04

JKSH 04 kite displays an overall organization closely resembling that of JKSH 01. The presence of a narrow funnel, delimited by stone walls at the western end of the kite, is

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4 Detail plan of kite JKSH 01 enclosure</figcaption></figure>
a distinctive feature of the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh kites, suggesting a localized architectural tradition in the construction of these structures (Fig. 5). The area at the outlet of the stone walls also benefits from the steep topography, where erosion has formed a natural geomorphological depression.

Although the enclosure is only partially preserved, it is clearly marked by sections of low stone walls overlooking the slope to the east, including the presence of characteristic circular features. Additional traces of the enclosure are also visible on the western slope of the natural geomorphological depression, where several more circular structures mark its layout. It is therefore evident that the depression was originally entirely enclosed, and that the gaps currently observed to the north and south result from significant erosion caused by the wadi runnel. Two circular structures were excavated on kite JKSH 04: St. 01 and St.02.

## Kite JKSH 07

JKSH 07 kite is located to the north of the chain of kites at Jibal al-Khashabiyeh (Fig. 2). The remains of an enclosure located at the convergence point of the driving lines, in a natural erosion geomorphological depression, could be clearly identified (Fig. 6). However, these structural remains are rather tenuous, highlighting the strong impact of erosion in these very exposed areas. The traces of enclosure are represented by sections of walls, the curvature of which indicates a characteristic star-shaped layout. Three circular

structures were identified at the extremity of these wall sections, in a so-called “pointed” position. These are the only architectural remains which can be attributed to kite construction with confidence. They clearly indicate that an enclosure was initially located around the edge of the deep ravine, following the contour lines that define the upper part of the natural geomorphological depression. However, the way in which this enclosure was arranged to the south, in the open part of the wadi, remains undetermined. Other structures are scattered on the slopes of the wadi, but their precise nature is unclear. Some appear to be of a later date, such as the stone corrals, one of which disrupted the layout of the kite’s eastern driving lines (Fig. 6: Unit A).

The excavation focused on the two best preserved circular structures around the perimeter of the enclosure, to the north of the natural geomorphological depression formed by the wadi, in the upper part of the embankment overlooking the ravine: St.02 and St.03.

## Surveying, remote sensing and mapping

Systematic observation of high-resolution open-access satellite imagery (Bing Maps overlay providing the most accurate and sharpest aerial imagery for the study area of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh), enabled a preliminary mapping of the entire chain of kites, ahead of the first fieldwork season in the area in 2013. This initial digitized layout was subsequently ground-truthed in the field, allowing corrections and

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5 Detail plan of kite’s JKSH 04 enclosure</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6 Detail plan of kite’s JKSH 07 enclosure. Dotted lines indicate later pastoral nomadic enclosures (Units A, B and C)</figcaption></figure>

refinements to the remote sensing observations. The nine kites were mapped on the ground using a handheld Trimble Juno 5 GPS unit during the first survey season in the study area. This allowed the identification of discrete structures integrated into the different desert kites (like circular cell-like features surrounding the kites’ enclosures, smaller sub circular or sub rectangular compartments linked to the driving lines, etc.), which were numbered according to the projects recording system (for kites structures: kite ID number/related structure ID number, example: JKSH 01/St.10). A full photo documentation was achieved along with the detailed description of each kite architectural organization. The mapping of the kites was constantly improved during the successive fieldwork seasons and through the continuous survey of the area carried out in parallel to the localized excavations. Increased accuracy was subsequently obtained for the mapping using a high-precision Trimble Pathfinder Pro XRS DGPS during the following seasons.

Low-altitude aerial imagery was obtained by kite aerial photography (KAP). Images were processed through photogrammetry (Agisoft Metashape) to generate 3D models of the kites and their topographic context. These 3D models were further used to produce high-resolution orthophotomaps, digital elevation models (DEM) and hillshades, which were integrated into the project's Geographical Information System (GIS).

## Excavation

The excavations were done by manual digging, using picks, shovels and trowel, targeting halves or quarters of the circular structures in order to preserve a stratigraphic section through each feature. The sediment was systematically and entirely dry-sieved using a 5 mm mesh. Stratigraphy was carefully recorded, and all excavation stages were thoroughly documented through section and top plan drawings, as well as photogrammetric recording. The volume of stones that had collapsed from the dry-stone masonry of the structures was precisely quantified by piling the removed stones from the excavation and generating a georeferenced 3D model of the pile using photogrammetry.

## Geochronology

Ten wood charcoal samples were collected from various stratigraphic contexts during the excavation of the structures (see *Supplementary Information 1* for detail of stratigraphy) and subsequently processed for radiocarbon dating at the AMS Laboratory of the University of Arizona.

Sediments for OSL dating were sampled using metal pipes (10 cm in diameter, 30 cm long) inserted in the stratigraphy sections of the excavated structures. Both ends of the tubes were hermetically sealed with opaque material and orientation
of the tubes was recorded. A total of 18 samples were obtained from different depths of the stratigraphic fills, while sampling in the lower stratigraphic horizons was generally privileged. The samples were then processed at the Institute of Earth and Environmental Science of Freiburg University. For each sample, the fraction 100–150 µm (150–200 µm for samples JKSH-18) was gained by wet sieving, chemically treated with HCl (20%) and quartz was separated using heavy liq-uids (δ=2.70 and δ=2.58), followed by HF etching (40% for 60 min) and HCl treatments (10% to dilute fluorites). The dried sample material was fixed on stainless steel discs (2 mm stamp silicon oil) and measured using a Lexsyg Smart device (Richter et al. 2015). A modified version of the single aliquot regenerative dose protocol (Murray and Wintle 2000) was used to determine the equivalent dose (D~e~). Preheat at 230 °C for 10 s was applied prior to all OSL measurements, as identified appropriate in performance test. OSL was stimu-lated at 125 °C for 60 s, and the signal 0–0.4 s was used for D~e~ calculation after subtracting the final 10 s as background. All samples show a rapid decay of the OSL signal (dominance of fast component). A minimum of 20 aliquots was measured per sample but for those with broad and none-symmetrical distri-bution the number of replicate measurements was increased 20. Mean D~e~ was calculated using the Central Age Model or the Minimum Age Model (Galbraith et al. 1999), the latter for samples with an overdispersion>0.12 and non-symmetrical distribution of D~e~ values (using a sigma_b value of 0.12). The concentration of dose rate relevant elements (K, Th, U) was determined by high-resolution gamma-spectrometry (at VKTA Dresden). The activity determined for different iso-topes of the uranium decay chain was used to detect potential disequilibrium (cf. Preusser et al. 2023) but reveal not clear evidence for this. Dose rate and ages were calculated using ADELEv2017 software (Degering and Degering 2020) using an average water content of 3±3% and present day depth for the estimating cosmic dose rate (after Prescott and Hutton 1994). The detailed OSL data is provided in *Supplementary Information 2*.

All dating results were then processed through Bayes-
ian modeling, using Chronomodel 2.0 software (Lanos and
Dufresne 2019).

**Results**

Excavation of the kites' circular features

Architecture

The excavation of the six circular features surrounding the
enclosures of the three distinct kites at Jibal al-Khashabiyeh
revealed that these structures were all dug into the natural

substrate to depths ranging from 1.4 to 1.8 m (Fig. 7; see
*Supplementary Information 1* for the detailed description of
the architecture and stratigraphy of each excavated structure).
The walls of the structures were lined with a stone facing, fol-
lowing different arrangements according to local topography
and raw material availability. Most of the time, the dry-stone
masonry consisted of large stones arranged randomly or in
rough courses in the upper sections, while at the base it was
resting on massive rocks or stone boulders set vertically side
by side, or large spherical stones (geological concretions char-
acteristic of the study area). Smaller stones were sometimes
used to level surfaces for the placement of upper courses, as is
evidenced in JKSH07/St.03. Most of the time, the walls of the
circular structures were vertical or slightly corbelled, although
at JKSH01/St.10 they exhibited a marked inward slope, result-
ing in a smaller diameter at the base than at the top.

The structures were generally dug to the limestone bedrock. At JKSH 07/St.02, stone packing was used in places to level out the irregularities of the bedrock and stabilize the wall construction. Evidence for excavating the bedrock, in order to deepen the pit-like structure, was observed in several instances. At JKSH 04/St.01, it appears that during the construction of this structure, the bedrock was met higher than expected by the kite builders, at least in part of the structure. Characteristic fractures in the limestone outcrop indicate that it was partially cut during the excavation of the structure's pit, in order to reach the desired depth. It is likely that the friable and fissured nature of this geological formation allowed it to be broken down into blocks using picks made of chert, similar to those recovered from the basal infill layers of JKSH04/St.02. Likewise, at JKSH01/St.01, where the bedrock encountered at the base of the pit consisted of soft, chalky limestone, it was slightly deepened at the center, resulting in a depression within the bottom of the structure. This additional excavation was likely intended to enhance the overall depth of the feature.

Stratigraphy

The sedimentary infill of the excavated structures shows
important variability, likely induced by micro-topography
and local setting conditions. Despite these differences,
some common recurring trends are observable. In almost
all excavated structures, the upper fill differs significantly
from the lower stratigraphy, possibly reflecting changes in
the sedimentation processes related to palaeoenvironmen-
tal and climatic changes. Upper layers are generally sandy
and more homogeneous in character, with higher grain-size
sorting, indicative of increased aeolian activity. In contrast,
the lower deposits are more heterogeneous, with poorly
sorted sediments and a less sandy matrix, suggesting depo-
sition under waterborne conditions (Crozet 2017). Intake of
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** An example of excavated circular structure on the surrounding of a desert kite at Jibal al-Khashabiyeh: top plan and section of structure JKSH 04/St.02</figcaption></figure>
water related sedimentary deposits is evidenced in several instances, notably at JKSH01/St.01 where a heterogeneous clayey pocket containing small stones lies in the lower parts of the stratigraphy, or at JKSH01/St.10, as evidenced by a wedge-shaped lens of irregular thickness composed of alternating light brown sand layers and thin, greenish-gray clay layers. It is also clearly evidenced in both structures of kite JKSH 07, where several lenses of slaking crusts (typical of hydric depositional contexts) have been identified. Besides the various natural and environmental conditions dictating the sedimentation processes, another characteristic of the stratigraphic deposits of the excavated structures is the evidence for later reuse of the pit-like structures. This is attested at five out of the six excavated structures. It is materialized by traces of small ephemeral hearths, identified at variable depths from the surface at JKSH01/St.01, JKSH04/St.01, JKSH04/St.02 or JKSH07/St.02, indicating the use of the structures as temporary shelters. At JKSH07/St.02, this reoccupation also involved architectural modification, as evidenced by the construction of a partition wall abutting the internal face of the western wall. In two instances (JKSH07/St.02 and St.03), lenses of organic rich sediment, might constitute remains of animal dung, thus possibly indicating phases of reuse of the structures for animal penning, once they became shallower following their sedimentation. Finally, a last common characteristic to all excavated structures is the evidence for collapse of the upper courses of the stone facing walls within the inner fill. This collapse occurred at different pace and timing within the various excavated structures, sometimes soon after the end of their original phase of use (JKSH01/St.10, JKSH04/St.02), or in an advanced stage of the sedimentation process (JKSH01/St.01, JKSH04/St.01), or more progressively during the entire in-fill through time (JKSH07/St.02 and St.03). The collapse and destruction of the walls might also have been partly affected by the later reuse of the structures. Calculations of the substantial volume of fallen stones suggest that the contour walls were originally approximately 50 to 60 cm higher than their current preserved height, meaning they likely matched the height of the general enclosure walls of the kites. Based on this estimate, the total original depth of the pit-like structures (from the bottom of the pit to the top of the constructed wall) would have ranged from at least 1.9 to 2.4 m.

# Age of the desert kites

## Dating results

The excavation of the six pit-traps in three of the nine kites forming the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh chain of kites yielded 28 chronometric dates in total, comprising ten radiocarbon

determinations and 18 OSL ages. The samples are irregularly distributed in the stratigraphy, sparse in the upper half and more numerous in the deepest parts, in order to best approximate the onset of sedimentation after abandonment of the structure (see *Supplementary Information 1* for the detailed description of the stratigraphy and samples stratigraphic contexts). All available dates therefore do not represent the building age, but the *terminus ante quem* (TAQ) of the constructions.

AMS radiocarbon measurements were carried out on a few indeterminate charcoal fragments, which may, in some cases, be affected by an old wood effect. From a taphonomic point of view, the samples fall into two groups with very different meanings: samples extracted from hearths evidencing later reuse (see *Supplementary Information 1*) and others scattered in the sedimentary accumulation with no visible link to any anthropic structure. In the first case, the date obtained is a reliable chronological marker within the stratigraphic sequence. In the latter, however, the charcoal fragments are not necessarily in primary depositional context, as they may have been affected by bioturbation and/or a temporal gap between combustion and final deposition in the pit-trap. As such, their association with the sedimentary unit in which they were found must be considered less secure.

A straightforward reading of the results table (Table 1) shows that the calibrated radiocarbon dates cluster into two distinct periods: a recent, historical to sub-contemporary phase, and an older phase that, with one exception (JKSH04/St.02, AA106913), generally follows the stratigraphic order. The outlier (AA106913) should be considered the result of contamination or sample disturbance and must be discarded, as its calibrated age range is contemporaneous with the time of excavation, despite being taken from a hearth located near the base of the stratigraphic sequence of the excavated structure. Among the more recent dates, two originate from charcoal samples collected in hearth features, indicating a later reuse of the pit-trap structures as temporary human shelters, probably during the Abbasid period (AA109446, ca. cal. 990 CE) and the Ottoman period (AA106912, ca. cal. 1560 CE). These findings suggest that, despite the evident antiquity of the kite structures, the infilling of the pit-traps was not complete by the historical period, whether due to erosive processes or episodic reuse. Importantly, evidence for the reuse of pit-traps extends as far back as the Late Neo-lithic, as demonstrated by the date obtained from a hearth feature within the JKSH04/St.01 structure (AA106910, ca. cal. 5920 BCE).

While about a third of the OSL samples have narrow (low overdispersion) and symmetric (Gaussian) Dc distributions, some show quite large overdispersion values (up to 0.30) and a positive skewness. In combination, this point
<table><caption>**Table 1** Radiocarbon and OSL dates. *Depth (cm)*: depth of sample below surface; *age and error*: conventional radiocarbon age (BP) and OSL age prior to 2017 CE (yr); *F<sup>14</sup>C*: fraction modern (Reimer et al. 2004); *Md*: median of the distribution of individual calibrated age; *HPD*: higher posterior density region (confidence level 95% and 70%) of modeled calendar age; *MAP*: maximum *a posteriori* of modeled calendar age distribution. Calibrations are carried out using Chronomodel v.2.0 (Lanos and Dufresne 2019) and the IntCal20 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2020). CALIBBomb was used for sub-actual sample (Reimer and Reimer 2024). All calendar ages are rounded to the nearest ten</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Cell id.</th><th rowspan="2">Lab id.</th><th rowspan="2">Depth (cm)</th><th rowspan="2">age BP</th><th rowspan="2">error</th><th colspan="3">calendar ages BCE</th><th colspan="3">modeled calendar ages BCE</th></tr><tr><th>95% range</th><th>Md</th><th>HPD 95%</th><th>MAP</th><th>HPD 70%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">JKSH 01/St.01<br>[140 cm]</td><td>14C</td><td>AA106905<br>event 70</td><td>70</td><td>7580</td><td>38</td><td>6500 - 6490; 6480 - 6380</td><td>6440</td><td>6560 - 6250</td><td>6440</td><td>6490 - 6380</td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 6<br>event 110-112</td><td>110</td><td>8720</td><td>380</td><td>7450 - 5960</td><td>6700</td><td>6950 - 6360</td><td>6540</td><td>6740 - 6440</td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 5</td><td>112</td><td>8330</td><td>410</td><td>7110 - 5510</td><td>6310</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 8</td><td>125</td><td>7880</td><td>370</td><td>6590 - 5140</td><td>5860</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 7</td><td>129</td><td>9490</td><td>1040</td><td>9450 - 5490</td><td>7460</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14C</td><td>AA106906</td><td>130</td><td>7985</td><td>37</td><td>7050 - 6770; 6760 - 6750; 6720 - 6700</td><td>6910</td><td>7180 - 6530</td><td>6860</td><td>7020 - 6700</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">JKSH 01/St.10<br>[180 cm]</td><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 1<br>event 108-111</td><td>108</td><td>9200</td><td>430</td><td>8020 - 6340</td><td>7180</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 2</td><td>111</td><td>8560</td><td>410</td><td>7340 - 5740</td><td>6540</td><td>7030 - 5810</td><td>6640</td><td>6860 - 6240</td></tr><tr><td>14C</td><td>AA106907</td><td>120</td><td>8100</td><td>43</td><td>7310 - 7280; 7250 - 7230; 7190 - 7030; 6970 - 6950</td><td>7080</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 3</td><td>120</td><td>8090</td><td>430</td><td>6910 - 5230</td><td>6070</td><td>7160 - 6430</td><td>6890</td><td>7070 - 6720</td></tr><tr><td>14C</td><td>AA106908</td><td>150</td><td>8051</td><td>49</td><td>7170 - 7160; 7140 - 7100; 7080 - 6770; 6710 - 6710</td><td>6960</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 4</td><td>152</td><td>8930</td><td>670</td><td>8220 - 5600</td><td>6910</td><td>7240 - 6750</td><td>7040</td><td>7140 - 6900</td></tr><tr><td>14C</td><td>AA106909</td><td>170</td><td>8154</td><td>31</td><td>7310 - 7270; 7250 - 7230; 7190 - 7060</td><td>7130</td><td>7450 - 6970</td><td>7140</td><td>7280 - 7070</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><strong>TAQ construction JKSH 01</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">JKSH 04/St.01<br>[150 cm]</td><td>14C</td><td>AA106910**<br>event 65</td><td>65</td><td>7029</td><td>29</td><td>5980 - 5840</td><td>5920</td><td>6090 - 5700</td><td>5910</td><td>5990 - 5840</td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>*JKSH OSL 12</td><td>75</td><td>4160</td><td>320</td><td>3390 - 890</td><td>2140</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 13</td><td>113</td><td>8240</td><td>590</td><td>7380 - 5060</td><td>6220</td><td>7050 - 5810</td><td>6130</td><td>6580 - 5930</td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 15</td><td>129</td><td>9080</td><td>410</td><td>7860 - 6260</td><td>7060</td><td>7720 - 6080</td><td>6800</td><td>7250 - 6400</td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 14</td><td>134</td><td>8560</td><td>390</td><td>7310 - 5780</td><td>6540</td><td>8860 - 6330</td><td>7120</td><td>7780 - 6650</td></tr><tr><td>14C</td><td>*AA106911**<br>event 150</td><td>150</td><td>9010</td><td>140</td><td>8550 - 7740</td><td>8160</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">JKSH 04/St.02<br>[155 cm]</td><td>14C</td><td>*AA106912**<br>event 110</td><td>110</td><td>306</td><td>26</td><td>1500 - 1600; 1610 - 1650 cal CE</td><td>1560</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 9</td><td>131</td><td>6390</td><td>570</td><td>5490 - 3250</td><td>4370</td><td>6020 - 2600</td><td>4380</td><td>5220 - 3500</td></tr><tr><td>14C</td><td>*AA106913**<br>event 143-144</td><td>140</td><td>1.0310</td><td>0.0031</td><td>1956; 2012 - 2014; 2015 cal, CE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 11</td><td>143</td><td>9190</td><td>690</td><td>8520 - 5820</td><td>7170</td><td>7980 - 5210</td><td>6540</td><td>7250 - 5880</td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 10</td><td>144</td><td>8070</td><td>560</td><td>7150 - 4950</td><td>6050</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><strong>TAQ construction JKSH 04</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">JKSH 07/St.02<br>[180cm]</td><td>14C</td><td>*AA109446**<br>event 65</td><td>65</td><td>1064</td><td>21</td><td>900 - 920; 960 - 1020 cal CE</td><td>990</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 17</td><td>167</td><td>7090</td><td>510</td><td>6070 - 4070</td><td>5070</td><td>7010 - 3110</td><td>5080</td><td>5880 - 4210</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">JKSH 07/St.03<br>[160 cm]</td><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 16</td><td>130</td><td>8980</td><td>440</td><td>7820 - 6100</td><td>6960</td><td>7910 - 5050</td><td>6740</td><td>7310 - 6070</td></tr><tr><td>OSL</td><td>JKSH OSL 18</td><td>142</td><td>9130</td><td>440</td><td>7970 - 6250</td><td>7110</td><td>8890 - 6240</td><td>7300</td><td>7980 - 6760</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><strong>TAQ construction JKSH 07</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

towards incomplete resetting of the OSL signal at the time of deposition in part of the grains (e.g., Cunningham et al. 2011), which was compensated for by the application of the Minimum Age Model (MAM).

## Bayesian modeling

The dataset includes some very precise radiocarbon determinations, which may not always correspond to the actual age of the deposit, and many less precise but more robust OSL measurements. Overall, there is a generally good agreement between radiocarbon and OSL dates, which provides an appropriate framework for a Bayesian approach. Bayesian analysis is used here to estimate the most probable TAQ for the construction of each of the three kites, taking into account all available information.

The structure of the model is relatively simple (Fig. 8). It consists of three independent phases, each corresponding to one of the kites, and grouping all the chronological events defined for that kite. These events represent discrete points in calendar time, each associated with one or more

radiocarbon and/or OSL measurements. Within each pit-trap, the events are ordered stratigraphically, although the stratigraphic sequences of the different kites are treated as independent from one another. In the absence of evidence for structural modifications (e.g., the addition of a pit-trap), we consider that the TAQ for the construction of each kite is represented by the modeled calendar age for the start of each phase.

The most recent historical dates have not been included in the model analyzed, as they do not exert any constraint (AA106912 and AA106913 from JKSH 04/St.02; and AA109446 from JKSH 07/St.02). Two dates obtained in JKSH04/St.01 were also removed from the model before calculation: (1) The radiocarbon date AA106911 (event 150), obtained from a very small sample, which the AMS laboratory of the University of Arizona believes should be treated with great caution. (2) The OSL date JKSH OSL12 (event 75), which is much more recent than the radiocarbon date (AA106910, event 65) of a stratigraphically later hearth. Presumably, the OSL age represents a very late filling of this pit.

<footnote>* excluded from model</footnote>

<footnote>** hearth</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8** Diagram of the chronological model used in the Bayesian analysis. The different pit-traps in each kite were assumed to have been built at the same time. Bold line: phase boundary. TAQ: *terminus ante quem* of the construction of each kite (beginning of each phase)</figcaption></figure>

The main results of the analysis are shown in Table 1; Fig. 9. The three posterior density distributions of the beginning of each phase, which are those of the TAQ of each construction, show similarities but also significant differences. The most obvious is the spread of distributions on the calendar scale. This is simply due to the presence, or absence, of radiocarbon measurements in the lower part of the stratigraphies. It should also be noted that all distributions are more or less asymmetrical. This characteristic is linked to the very structure of the model used, which offers no constraints prior to the beginning of the phases. Among the similarities, the most obvious is the proximity of the posterior density distribution modes (MAP) on the calendar time scale.

The most important results of this Bayesian modeling are shown in the last three columns of Table 1. They show the TAQs (HPD 70%) for construction of the three kites, which are between 7280 and 7070 cal. BCE for kite JKSH 01, between 7870 and 6750 cal. BCE for kite JKSH 04, and between 8000 and 6770 cal. BCE for kite JKSH 07.

We have included the usual HPDs 95% (the density region which contains 95% of the highest posterior densities), the MAPs and the HPDs 70%. Given the asymmetry of the distributions, which is only the result of a mathematical artefact, the HPDs 70% are undoubtedly more realistic estimates of the actual dates of the three construction TAQs. These TAQs take into account the totality of stratigraphically-ordered events and their uncertainties, and in particular, within each sequence, the first ones, which are

extremely close to the very beginning of sedimentation, whether immediately after abandonment or in the first moments of use.

The results of the Bayesian modeling place the highest probabilities of construction of the three kites JKSH 01, JKSH 04 and JKSH 07 during the Late PPNB. However, the nature of the data and the Bayesian modeling do not allow to address the issue of their contemporaneity on a finer scale, decadal or centennial.

## Discussion

### The circular cell-like structures are pit-traps

While at the time very few attempts of excavation of the circular cell-like features surrounding the kites' enclosures have been made, the results of our investigations at Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, along with excavations from the *Globalkites* project in Armenia, Jordan (Harrat al-Shaam), Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia have refined our understanding of desert kites (Crassard et al. 2022a).

A major revelation concerns the circular, cell-like structures around kite enclosures, which were found to be deep, hollow pits built from rough fieldstones, often several meters deep (Brochier et al. 2014; Abu-Azizeh and Tarawneh 2015; Tarawneh et al. 2017b; Abu-Azizeh et al. 2021; Barge et al. 2021). This finding challenges earlier
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9 Posterior density distribution of the TAQ of each construction</figcaption></figure>

interpretations of these features as hideouts. Instead, they
appear as extensions of the guiding walls, channeling ani-
mals into concealed trapping pits. These structures, now
visible as filled depressions, contain stratified deposits with
biogenic materials for radiometric dating and environmental
data crucial for chronology, though archaeological artifacts
are rare. As they were originally dug from what is often still
the present surface, additional test trenches were opened
along enclosures, cells, and driving lines. Excavations con-
firmed that only these circular pits were hollow, frequently
reaching depths of several meters, thereby reinforcing their
interpretation as functional traps.

This pattern was observed in all excavated cells from
dozens of kites across five regions, providing compelling
evidence for their use in mass-hunting strategies. Given
their distinctive role and consistent morphology, we pro-
posed the universal term “pit-traps” for these kite-associ-
ated structures (Crassard et al. 2022a).

Desert kites as a diffusionist phenomenon

Although desert kites share a broadly consistent layout
across their vast distribution – with the systematic asso-
ciation of driving lines, an enclosure, and pit-traps – the
detailed shape and size of these structures vary consider-
ably (Helms and Betts 1987; Echallier and Braemer 1995).
High-resolution satellite imagery has not only enabled a
significant expansion of the inventory in recent years but
has also provided a means to better characterize this diver-
sity (Barge et al. 2020, 2025). It is now possible to system-
atically record and analyze the measurable components of
kites, such as their dimensions and internal features, based
on image data. A recent exploratory study of these mor-
phological variables, combining quantitative and spatial
methods, has highlighted and refined this diversity through
the identification of 12 distinct kite types within the entire
distribution area in the Middle East and southwestern
Asia (Bouzid and Barge 2022; Barge et al. 2023). The mapping of these 12 types reveals that each occupies a limited region within the broader distribution area. This suggests the existence of kite "families" (or kite-building traditions) with distinct morphological characteristics and well-defined spatial distributions. These findings indicate that the hunting technique, materially represented by the mega-traps, varied across space. Furthermore, although chronological data remain scarce, they demonstrate that this technique also evolved over time. The early dates obtained at Jibal al-Khashabiych allow us to situate the kite phenomenon within a *longue durée* framework. Based on this chronological marker and those recorded in the northern part of the distribution area, the temporal span of kites is estimated to be around at least 8,000 years. Through the mapping of kite morphological diversity, a likely spatiotemporal evolution of the hunting technique emerges, with significant ecological and socio-economic implications.

Such transformations across time and space of an over-
all consistent concept suggest an evolutionary diffusionist
model of development of ideas and techniques applied to
mass hunting strategies. The reasons behind these morpho-
logical changes remain undocumented but are potentially
numerous. First, improvements in trap efficiency were
likely sought, as several observations seem to corroborate
this idea. Additionally, over such a long period of use, cli-
matic conditions changed, which may have altered the dis-
tribution and migration patterns of game animals. The size
of herds could have also fluctuated significantly, especially
considering that mass hunting using kites over centuries
might have decimated animal populations in some places
or at least temporarily altered their behavior and migration
routes, possibly even leading to their extinction. It is also
possible that the type and quantity of targeted game varied
between periods. Similarly, the frequency and timing of
hunting episodes may have differed.

Beyond these multiple potential practical explana-
tions for the evolution of kites over time, the motivations
of hunters likely changed as well, influenced by shifts in
socio-economic, political or cultural contexts over the
long term. Regardless, the persistence of this hunting tech-
nique across millennia is remarkable. It endured while
undergoing modifications, demonstrating both robustness
and adaptability that allowed it to persist despite the con-
straints mentioned above. Within the wide range of dates
obtained from kites of different shapes across the near
eastern arid margins, the dates obtained at Jibal al-Kha-
shabiyeh trace the phenomenon back to the Late PPNB.
Although much remains to be done in order to date every
variant type of desert kites, the oldest dates obtained from

Jibal al-Khashabiych provide a solid milestone in order to
attempt to track the trajectory of this diffusionist process
and its origin in time and space.

Desert kites may precede the LPPNB: hypotheses for an earlier origin

Despite the new evidence presented here, it is plausible
that the origins of the desert kite phenomenon extend fur-
ther back in time than the LPPNB examples at Jibal al-
Khashabiyeh. The nine kites studied constitute an already
rather complex and elaborate type of kites. The funneled,
star-shaped branches of the enclosures, which direct ani-
mals along a prescribed path toward the pit-traps, should
be seen as the product of technological refinement, an
advanced iteration derived from earlier, more irregu-
lar and rudimentary enclosures. The typical star-shaped
morphology is one aspect amongst others that may reflect
the sophistication achieved by kite builders (Crassard et
al. 2022a). Such a shape and layout testify a mastery of
the use of topography along with a profound knowledge
of animal behavior, which must have been acquired over
generations of experimentations, refinement, and trans-
mission of know-how.

This level of sophistication can be compared to other kite
forms that appear less developed in the Harrat al-Shaam,
approximately 200 km further north, where multiple modi-
fications and reconstructions are observed. Several authors
have suggested that the so-called “meander walls” – long
walls extending over tens of kilometers, composed of
irregular sub-rectilinear sections (Fig. 10: A) – predate
kites (Kempe and Al-Malabeh 2010a, 2013; Betts and
Burke 2015, 2021). These structures may represent primi-
tive forms of kites. It also appears that meander walls fore-
shadow enclosed structures equipped with pit-traps, though
in a very rudimentary form (Fig. 10: B). The star-shaped
form (Fig. 10: C) seems to be more advanced and might
represent the latest kite form encountered in the region
(according to: Kempe and Al-Malabeh 2010a, 2013; Betts
and Burke 2015, 2021).

Moreover, our research has identified another morpho-
logical evolution along the same trajectory: certain kites
with a cauliflower-like shape (Barge et al. 2023) appear to
be older than star-shaped kites (Barge 2024). In a limited
number of cases, satellite imagery enables the establishment
of a reliable relative chronology between two constructions.
To investigate this, we analyzed a 100 × 33 km sector of the
Harrat al-Shaam, containing a total of 527 kites. In 24 cases,
cauliflower-shaped kites were modified or replaced by star-
shaped kites, while no occurrences of the reverse transition
were observed.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 10** Built features studied within a defined area of Harrat-al-Sham (in 2016, *Globalkites* project) : (A) Segment of a meander wall, probably constructed in several stages and including circular pit-trap structures in some places; (B) Kite JD601, including driving lines and an</figcaption></figure>

enclosure composed of an arrangement of walls reminiscent of the meander walls; (C) Kite JD 137 with a star-shaped enclosure and a number of driving lines

This transformation involves narrowing the enclosure's entrance and adding a distinct, pointed indentation on either side, oriented in the opposite direction of the entrance and containing one or more pit traps (Fig. 11). These proximal indentations thus appear to constitute a significant innovation. With these features, kites adopt a star-shaped morphology. Furthermore, in the Harrat al-Shaam, all observed examples of unfinished kites exhibit cauliflower-like forms, further supporting the hypothesis that these earlier forms were eventually abandoned in favor of more sophisticated star-shaped designs.

This suggests that the Khashabiyeh kites, which feature proximal indentations and a star-like morphology, result from an already well-established technical tradition. While the results reported in this contribution indicate that they are the earliest kites known to date, they do not necessarily

represent the initial use of mega-traps and the origin of the kite phenomenon, which may be significantly older.

## Socio-cultural and economic implications of the late PPNB dating of desert kites

The chronometric evidence from Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, dating back the origin of the desert kites to as early as the Late PPNB in the second half of the 8th mill. BCE, thus sheds a new light on a phenomenon deeply rooted into the human occupation of the Southern Levantine "margins", outside of the so-called "Fertile Crescent" considered as a core area of development involving at the time major innovations as the rise of agriculture, herding, as well as sedentism. It inevitably raises the question of the nature of the human groups who engaged in the construction of desert kites and related mass-hunting.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 11** Examples of modifications of a former cauliflower-shaped enclosure into a subsequent star-shaped enclosure; the modification involves narrowing the entrance of the enclosure and adding a distinct, pointed indentation with pit-traps on each side</figcaption></figure>
## Revisiting the urban-origin hypothesis

Zeder et al. (2013) emphasized the hypothesis linking the desert kites with the emergence of urban societies of the Early Bronze Age. Although they acknowledged earlier gazelle hunting in the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic, they minimized its scale, suggesting it served only small forager or early agricultural groups. Their argument rested largely on a dense faunal deposit at Tell Kuran in northeastern Syria, linked to nearby kites located ca. 10 km away in the Hemma plateau. However, these kites remain undated, and the presumed chronological link is unverified (Shakhmu-radyan 2020). Their conclusions reflected a then-limited chronological framework concerning the general assump-tion of kites dating, focused primarily on the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE.

The new dates from Jibal al-Khashabiyeh refine this picture, by demonstrating that mass-hunting systems using sophisticated mega-traps were already in opera-tion at least as early as the Late PPNB, more than two millennia before the rise of Early Bronze Age urban cen-ters. This does not exclude the possibility that desert kites experienced renewed development, intensification or reconfiguration in later periods, in some regions possibly in response to the economic demands of emergent urban societies. However, the Khashabiyeh sequence demon-strates that such later phases represent secondary devel-opments, whereas the origins of the kite phenomenon lie significantly earlier in time, within the Neolithic. Conse-quently, the desert kite tradition should be understood as a long-term phenomenon with multiple phases of use and transformation, rather than as an innovation initiated by Early Bronze societies.

## Early intensification of hunting in the neolithic

Zooarchaeological studies from the northeastern Badia of Jordan already pointed to intensification of hunting strat-egies during the early and middle PPNB (Martin et al. 2016). Significant hunting pressure on gazelles are nota-bly witnessed qualitatively (indiscriminate age classes cull of animals) and quantitatively (over 90% of gazelle within the faunal assemblage and intensive carcass pro-cessing) at late PPNB Dhuweila, reflecting a focused tar-geting of a single species and possibly the emergence of regional meat or hide exchange networks, beyond the sub-sistence needs of local hunter-gatherers. While Dhuwei-la's direct link to kite use remains debated (Betts 1998; Zeder 2012), its role as a specialized hunting camp sup-ports broader patterns of intensified hunting well before the Early Bronze Age.

## Revisiting pastoralism as a driving force

Desert kites were not so long ago hypothesized as means to provide large supplies of meat to so-called mega-settlements to the west (Bar-Yosef 2016). Here, economic demands from largely sedentary agriculturalist-herders, rather than nascent mobile pastoralism, is considered the primary moti-vator for developments in the east. More recently, the con-struction and use of the desert kites has been proposed as a response to populations practicing husbandry in the context of the rise of pastoral nomadism during the Late Neolithic (Nadel et al. 2024; Wasse 2019; Wasse et al. 2020).

In some regions of the southern Levant, this model may apply. In the Negev and Sinai, desert kites are fewer in num-ber, smaller, and simpler in form. It has been suggested that they should be integrated as a substantial part of the Timnian so-called pastoral complex, covering the 6th through the end of the 3rd mill. BCE (Nadel et al. 2024: 1). This model emphasizes the social and ritual function of kites within the “constructed desert” landscape of early pastoral societ-ies, rather than the subsistence aspects kites might provide. Instead, kites are primarily viewed as a mean of social cohe-sion and way to delineate territories between different groups.

Concerning the eastern deserts of the Levant, the appear-ance of kites has been hypothesized as closely tied to the devel-opment of pastoralism and spread of herding in the Badia over the course of the 7th millennium BCE (Wasse 2019: 269). In this model, these processes are viewed as exogenous devel-opments originating from the Neolithic agricultural villages from the western zone of the Levantine corridor (the so-called “core-area” of Neolithization). A correlation is proposed spe-cifically with the fluit of substantial agricultural villages in northern Syria and the southern Levantine corridor, the so-called megasite phenomenon marked by the apparent de novo founding of multiple large agro-pastoralist settlements over 10 ha in size in the Jordanian highlands. The hypothesized impact on local landscapes by domesticated sheep and goat grazing, agricultural production, and concomitant demo-graphic pressure over the landscape has been proposed as a mechanism triggering unprecedented significant exploitation of the eastern steppes during the Late PPNB (Wasse 2019: 273–274; Rollefson 1989; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1992; see as well Rollefson et al. 2014 for a more recent theo-retical restitution of the processes and mechanisms leading to this hypothesized development). Just as the rise of herding and mobile pastoralism in the arid ‘margins’ is viewed as an exogeneous phenomenon emanating from the core-area, the emergence of desert kites is considered under this framework a direct consequence of development relating to sedentary agropastoral societies established in large settlements (Wasse 2019: 273–274).
However, our results from Jibal al-Khashabiyeh challenge this narrative. The dates obtained for Jibal al-Khashabiyeh kites indicate that specialized hunting strategies based on the use of highly sophisticated mega-traps emerged in these regions at a time when pastoralist strategies were only just emerging, or likely even prior to their introduction (Garrard et al. 1996: 217–219; Horwitz et al. 1999: 74; Martin 1999: 100; Martin and Edwards 2013: 69; Makarewicz 2013: 161–162, 2014; Miller et al. 2019; but see Wasse 2019 arguing for an earlier introduction of pastoralism than usually accepted). They appear to have been built by resident hunter-forager groups with deep local knowledge, and the hypothesis that kite technology was introduced by agropastoral migrants from Mediterranean zones is inconsistent with the cognitive and logistical demands of kite construction and use.

## Evidence for Indigenous forager occupation

Contrary to the assumption of an empty Badia later colonized by herders, there is increasing evidence for a widespread and established Neolithic forager presence. Early PPNB sites have been identified across the northeastern and southeastern Badia, including Wadi Mushash 163 (Rokitta-Krumnow 2019), Jilat 7 (Garrard et al. 1994), Shubayqa 6 (Richter et al. 2016), Harrat Juhayra 202 (Fujii et al. 2019), and ‘Einab 1 (Štefanisko et al. 2024), and even as far south as Jebel Qatar 101 in northwestern Arabia (Crassard et al. 2013). These sites are not isolated exceptions or anomalies, but part of a widespread human occupation of hunter-foragers in productive steppe areas that only nowadays are arid regions at the “margins” of the “Fertile Crescent” (Edwards 2024). The site of ‘Einab 1, located only 40 km to the south of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh is particularly relevant. Dated to the Early PPNB, it is interpreted as a seasonal hunting camp, that may reflect early experimentation with organized hunting (Štefanisko et al. 2024: 22). Such evidence undermines the diffusionist model from the Mediterranean zone and supports a scenario of localized innovation genuine to the margins accompanied by regular interaction with the interior.

While the question of what precisely triggered the emergence of desert kites cannot be answered definitively at this stage, the currently available archaeological record does not allow to consider climatic change as a primary driving force in this process. Climatic variability certainly characterized the broader Holocene sequence, but there is no clear indication allowing to extrapolate on its impact on the behavior, demography or movements of herds of wild ungulates. A more plausible explanation is that kite construction represents a local development rooted in a long trajectory of hunting knowledge and practice among populations inhabiting the steppe and desert margins since at least the early PPNB. The design, placement and efficient operation of these large-scale

traps presuppose generations of accumulated experience with gazelle behavior, topography and collective hunting, which is more consistent with long-term local evolution than with a sudden introduction of novel techniques from outside.

At the same time, these local trajectories did not unfold in isolation. The contemporaneity between the LPPNB dating of the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh kites and the demographic and economic expansion of large agro-pastoral villages in the western highlands raises the possibility of important regional interactions. The concentration of populations in increasingly large and dense settlements such as ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu‘eib in the north (Rollefson 1989; Simmons et al. 2000) or Ba‘ja (Gebel and Bienert 1997), Basta (Gebel et al. 2006; Nissen et al. 2004), Beidha (Byrd 2005), es-Sifiya (Mahasneh 1997) and ‘Ain Jammam further south (Waheeb and Fino 1997) is likely to have generated a growing demand for meat and other animal products, while also exerting increased pressure on local environmental resources (Gebel 2004; Bienert et al. 2004; Rollefson 2004, 2019). In such a context, high-yield hunting strategies developed by highly skilled hunter groups in the desert margins may have been stimulated or catalyzed by this expanding regional demand. From this perspective, the emergence of kites can be seen as the outcome of locally grounded hunting traditions that were intensified and formalized in response to new economic opportunities created by the LPPNB mega-sites, rather than as a direct off-shoot of migrations from these sedentary communities.

Such a reciprocal model of development may also provide a more suitable interpretative framework for understanding the appearance and development of desert kites at other periods in time and in connection with different centers of sedentary development. This approach could, for example, be applied to kites dated to the 4th–3rd millennia BCE, potentially offering a revised perspective on the links commonly drawn between their construction and the emergence of urbanization during the Early Bronze Age (Bar-Oz et al. 2011b; Zeder et al. 2013). Rather than representing isolated or discontinuous innovations, these later manifestations may reflect the long-term persistence of highly specialized hunting traditions maintained in the steppe by expert groups whose activities responded to shifting regional demand. Over long timescales, these traditions likely underwent successive phases of expansion and contraction, shifts in targeted hunting zones, and repeated spatial reorganizations, each shaped by changing economic demands and evolving modes of interaction with major sedentary centers.

## Hunting architecture and alternative trajectories toward food production

In fact, desert kites align closely with a global phenomenon attributed to foraging societies defined as hunting
architecture: human made modifications of the landscape designed to capture wild game through built stationary structures (Lemke 2021, 2022). These structures reflect a deep understanding of animal behavior and a strategic use of topography. Lemke argues that such architecture marks a fundamental shift in foraging economies.

The scale of labor involved in constructing and operating desert kites implies collective organization, coordination, and possibly leadership. The presence of permanent structures and the investment they represent suggest forms of property, territoriality, and social aggregation more complex than traditionally envisioned. Hunting architecture and its use is one means by which social complexity can arise in hunter-gatherer societies (Lemke 2022).

The emergence of mass-hunting using desert kites in the arid margins of the Southern Levant represents an alternative trajectory toward food resources management, one that was eminently directed by a socially-guided ethos that emphasized provisioning of the community, in sharp contrast to household-production that directed subsistence strategies of sedentary agro-pastoralists to the west.

Rather than being a derivative of the core area's developments, desert kites may reflect a parallel pathway developed by forager societies with increasing degrees of social organization, surplus management, and landscape engineering.

This interpretation gains further support from the identification of occupation sites associated with kite users in Jibal al-Khashabiyeh (Abu-Azizeh and Tarawneh 2015; Tarawneh et al. 2017b). These sites reveal a distinct material culture, particularly in lithic industries, termed the Ghassanian techno-complex (Crassard et al. 2022b), dated to ca. 7000 cal. BCE. One of the sites has even yielded a depiction of a desert kite engraved on an architectural block, securing the cultural connection between the occupation and the nearby hunting structures (Crassard et al. 2023).

In conclusion, the Late PPNB dating of desert kites compounds a significant refinement of current models. It opens a space to consider local trajectories of Neolithization led by foragers, emphasizing the flexibility, complexity, and innovation of non-sedentary societies. The kite phenomenon thus emerges not as an extension of agricultural colonization, but as a distinct cultural expression of human adaptation in arid zones.

## Conclusion

The radiometric dating of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh kites is based on an array of ten radiocarbon dates and 18 OSL dates, originating from the excavation of six pit-trap structures belonging to three distinct kites integrated in a single chain of kites. The strength of the dataset lies

therefore in the use of two distinct and complementary dating methods, on charcoal and sediment samples deriving from controlled stratigraphic contexts, thus allowing the implementation of a Bayesian statistical approach ascertaining the consistency and reliability of the obtained ages. This dataset represents quantitatively and qualitatively the most robust chronometric dataset ever built for a single and consistent group of desert kite megas structures. It is the first time that distinct individual desert kites belonging to a same chain of kites provide consistent ages. These results set the building and use of the Desert kites of Jibal al-Khashabiyeh to as early as the Late PPNB period, during the second half of the 8th millennium BCE – roughly two millennia earlier than any secure date previously available.

Jibal al-Khashabiyeh desert kites are therefore the oldest kites known to date. This chronological attribution forces us to reconsider when, where, and by whom large-scale game-drive systems were conceived. Rather than importing a complex technology from farming neighbors, the foragers of the southern Levant appear to have engineered their own solution to the challenges of an arid landscape: monumental stone funnels leading to deep pit-traps capable of capturing entire herds.

The scale of labor, planning, and ecological knowledge embodied in these kites speaks of communities able to mobilize collective effort, transmit technical skills, and manage substantial surpluses. In this light, desert kites signal a locally grounded pathway toward economic intensification – one that relied on wild herds instead of domesticated flocks, yet proved equally transformative.

Seen from this perspective, the early Holocene steppe emerges as a laboratory of innovation. Tracking how kite morphology, associated toolkits, and settlement patterns evolve through time will sharpen our understanding of this indigenous trajectory and its connections to neighboring regions. Each new date and excavation moves us closer to a multidimensional history of Neolithization – one in which hunting architecture stands alongside cultivation and herding as a primary driver of social change across Southwest Asia.

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-026-02409-5.

**Acknowledgements** We thank the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, as well as the French Institute for the Near East (Ifpo) and Al Hussein Bin Talal University for their support (Grant N° 271/2021). The South-Eastern Badia Archaeological Project (SEBAP) is funded by grants from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lyon 2 Lumière University, Al-Hussein Bin Talal University and the CNRS National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (to W.A.A. and M.T.). The GLOBAL-KITES project (research in Harrat al-Shaam) was funded by a French National Research Agency grant ANR-12-JSH3-0004-01 (to RC).
**Author contributions** Conceptualization: M.T., W.A.A.; Excavation: M.T., W.A.A., R.C., J.A.S.P.; Funding acquisition: M.T., W.A.A., R.C.; OSL dating: F.P.; Gearchaeology and Bayesian modeling: J.E.B.; Writing – original draft: M.T., W.A.A., R.C., O.B., J.E.B., F.P.; Writing – review & editing: all authors.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Université Lumière Lyon 2.

**Data availability** No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

## Declarations

**Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Abu-Azizeh W, Tarawneh M, Crassard R, Sánchez-Priego JA (2021) Discovery and excavation of desert kites in the south-eastern badia of Jordan. In: Betts A, van Pelt WP (eds) The gazelle's dream. Sydney University, pp 225–252

Abu-Azizeh W, Tarawneh MB (2015) Out of the *harra*: desert kites in south-eastern Jordan. New results from the South Eastern Badia Archaeological Project. Arab Arch Epig 26:95–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12058

Adams RM, Parr PJ, Ibrahim M, Mughannum AS (1977) Saudi Arabian archaeological reconnaissance-1976. Preliminary report on the first phase of the comprehensive archaeological survey program. Atlal 1:21–40

Al Khasawneh S, Murray A, Thomsen K et al (2019) Dating a near eastern desert hunting trap (kite) using rock surface luminescence dating. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11:2109–2119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0661-3

Barge O (2024) Le programme Globalkites, Un système d'information géographique Au service de La recherche. Ardèche archéologie 41:73–88

Barge O, Abu-Azizeh W, Brochier JÉ et al (2020) Desert kites and constructions apparentées : découvertes récentes et mise à jour de l'extension géographique. Paleorient 46:179–200. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.407

Barge O, Albukaai D, Boelke M et al (2022) New Arabian desert kites and potential proto-kites extend the global distribution of hunting mega-traps. J Archaeol Sci Rep 42:103403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103403

Barge O, Bouzid S, Abu-Azizeh W et al (2023) Morphological and geographical variability of desert kites. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 15:27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01718-3

Barge O, Brochier JÉ, Chahoud J et al (2021) Hunting with kites in Armenia. In: Betts A, van Pelt WP (eds) The gazelle's dream. Sydney University, pp 105–126

Barge O, Brochier JÉ, Crassard R (2015a) Morphological diversity and regionalisation of kites in the Middle East and Central Asia. Arab Archaeol Epigr 26:162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12056

Barge O, Brochier JÉ, Karakhanyan A (2016) Northernmost kites? Quat Int 395:104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.051

Barge O, Brochier JÉ, Régagnon E et al (2015b) Unity and diversity of the kite phenomenon: a comparative study between Jordan, Armenia and Kazakhstan. Arab Archaeol Epigr 26:144–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12065

Barge O, Régagnon E, Abu-Azizeh W et al (2025) Desert kites and related constructions: data from the Globalkites project. J Open Archaeol Data 13:4. https://doi.org/10.5334/joad.150

Bar-Oz G, Nadel D, Avner U, Malkinson D (2011a) Mass hunting game traps in the southern levant: The negev and arabah “desert kites.” Near East Archaeol 74:208–215. https://doi.org/10.5615/nereastarch.74.4.0208

Bar-Oz G, Zeder M, Hole F (2011b) Role of mass-kill hunting strategies in the extirpation of Persian gazelle (*Gazella subgutturosa*) in the northern Levant. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:7345–7350. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017647108

Bar-Yosef O (2016) Changes in demand and supply for mass killings of gazelles during the Holocene. In: Bones and Identity. Zoarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia, Oxbow Books. Oxbow & Philadelphia, pp 113–124

Betts A (2014) A response to Zeder, Bar-Oz, Rufolo and Hole (2013). Quat Int 338:125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.01.006

Betts A, Burke D (2015) Desert kites in Jordan – a new appraisal. Arab Archaeol Epigr 26:74–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12062

Betts A, Burke D (2021) Game drives in the black Desert, Eastern Jordan. In: Betts A, van Pelt WP (eds) The gazelle's dream. Sydney University, pp 187–224

Betts AVG (1998) The Harra and the Hamad: excavations and explorations in Eastern Jordan. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield

Betts AVG, Yagodin VN (2000) A new look at desert kites. In: Stager LE, Greene JA, Coogan MD (eds) The archaeology of Jordan and beyond. BRILL, pp 29–43

Bienert H-D, Gebel H-GK, Neef R (2004) Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Wadi Musa, Jordan, 21st–25th of July, 1997. Berlin: Ex oriente

Bouzid S, Barge O (2022) Towards a typology of desert kites combining quantitative and spatial approaches. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 14:91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-022-01551-0

Brochier JÉ, Barge O, Chataigner C et al (2014) Kites on the margins. The Aragats kites in Armenia. Paléorient 40:25–53

Byrd B (2005) Early village life at Beidha, Jordan: neolithic Spatial organization and vernacular Architecture. British academymonographs in archaeology 14. Oxford University Press, CBRL and Oxford

Chambrade M, Betts A (2021) Kites of Syria, Southern Turkey and Western Iraq. In: Betts A, van Pelt WP (eds) The gazelle's dream. Sydney University, pp 127–186

Crassard R, Abu-Azizeh W, Barge O et al (2022a) The use of desert kites as hunting mega-traps: functional evidence and potential impacts on socioeconomic and ecological spheres. J World Prehist 35:1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-022-09165-z

Crassard R, Abu-Azizeh W, Barge O et al (2023) The oldest plans to scale of humanmade mega-structures. PLoS One 18:e0277927
Crassard R, Barge O, Bichot C-E et al (2015) Addressing the desert kites phenomenon and its global range through a Multi-proxy approach. J Archaeol Method Theory 22:1093–1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-014-9218-7

Crassard R, Petraglia MD, Parker AG et al (2013) Beyond the Levant: first evidence of a pre-pottery neolithic incursion into the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. PLoS One 8:e68061. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068061

Crassard R, Sánchez-Priego J, Pichon F et al (2022b) The Ghassanian Techno-Complex: Late/final PPNB Lithic Assemblages from Desert Kite-Associated Occupation Sites in Jibal al-Khashabiyyeh, South-Eastern Jordan. In: Nishiaki Y, Maeda O, Arimura (eds) Tracking the Neolithic in the Near East. Lithic Perspectives on Its Origins, Development and Dispersals. The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the PNN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Tokyo, 12th-16th November 2019. Sidestone Press, pp 327–339

Crozet J (2017) Etude du remplissage sédimentaire de quelques logettes de desert kites du sud est Jordanien (Jibal al-Khashabi-yeh), Unpublished Master thesis, Université Lumière Lyon 2

Cunningham A, Wallinga J, Minderhoud P (2011) Expectations of scatter in equivalent-dose distributions when using multi-grain aliquots for OSL dating. Geochronometria 38:424–431. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13386-011-0048-z

Davies CP (2005) Quaternary paleoenvironments and potential for human exploitation of the Jordan plateau desert interior. Geochronometry 20:379–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20055

Degering D, Degering A (2020) Change is the only constant - time-dependent dose rates in luminescence dating. Quat Geochronol 58:101074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2020.101074

Echallier J-C, Braemer F (1995) Nature et fonctions des desert kites: données et hypothèses nouvelles. Paleorient 21:35–63. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1995.4608

Eddy FW, Wendorf F (1999) An archaeological investigation of the central Sinai, Egypt. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colo

Edwards PC (2024) Innovations at the margins: the transmission of early pre-pottery neolithic B (EPPNB) culture across the levantine interior. Paleorient 49:135–148. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.3619

Fujii S, Adachi T, Nagaya K (2019) Harrat Juhayra 202: an early PPNB flint assemblage in the Jafr Basin, southern Jordan. In: Astruc L, McCartney C, Briois F, Kassianidou V (eds) Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move: Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic traditions, 8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Nicosia, November 23rd-27th 2016. Astrom Edition, Nicosia, pp 185–198

Galbraith RF, Roberts RG, Laslett GM et al (1999) Optical dating of single and multiple grains of quartz from Jinmium rock shelter, Norther Australia: part I, experimental design and statistical models. Archaeometry 41:339–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1999.tb00987.x

Garrard A, Baird D, Byrd B (1994) The chronological basis and significance of the late palaeolithic and neolithic sequence in the Azraq Basin, Jordan. In: Bar-Yosef O, Kra RS (eds) Late quaternary chronology and paleoclimates of the Eastern mediterranean. Radiocarbon and American School of Prehistoric Research, Tucson and Cambridge, pp 177–199

Garrard A, Martin L, Colledge S (1996) The emergence of crop cultivation and caprine herding in the marginal zone of the Southern levant. In: Harris DR (ed) The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. Routledge, London, pp 204–226

Gebel H-GK (2004) Central to what? The centrality issue of the LPPNB mega-site phenomenon in Jordan. In H.-D. Bienert, H.-G. K. Gebel, and R. Neef (eds), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Wadi Musa, Jordan, 21st–25th of July, 1997. Berlin: Ex oriente, pp 1–19

Gebel H-GK, Bienert HD (1997) Excavating Ba'ja, Greater Petra area, southern Jordan. Neolithics 1/97:9–11

Gebel H-GK, Nissen J, Zaid Z (2006) Basta II: The Architecture and Stratigraphy. ex oriente, Berlin

Helms SW, Betts A (1987) The desert kites of the Badiyat Esh-Sham and North Arabia. Paleorient 13:41–67. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1987.4416

Holzer A, Avner U, Porat N, Horwitz LK (2010) Desert kites in the Negev desert and northeast Sinai: their function, chronology and ecology. J Arid Environ 74:806–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridenv.2009.12.001

Horwitz LK, Tchernov E, Ducos P et al (1999) Animal domestication in the Southern Levant. Paleorient 25:63–80. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1999.4687

Iamoni M (2014) Late neolithic funerary evidence from palmyra: the Rujem al-Majdur necropolis and the ‘desert kite and tumulus cultural horizons’ in central Syria. In: Morandi Bonacossi D (ed) Settlement dynamics and human-landscape interaction in the dry steppes of Syria. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp 49–61

Jabbūr JS, Jabbūr SJ, Conrad LI (1995) The Bedouins and the desert: aspects of nomadic life in the Arab East. State University of New York Press, Albany

Kempe S, Al-Malabeh A (2010a) Hunting kites ('desert kites') and associated structures along the eastern rim of the Jordanian Harrat: a geo-archaeological Google Earth images survey. Z Orient-Archaeol 10:46–86

Kempe S, Al-Malabeh A (2010b) Kites and other archaeological structures along the Eastern Rim of the Harrat (Lava Plain) of Jordan, Signs of Intensive Usage in Prehistoric Time, a Google Earth Images Study. In: Middleton GJ (ed) Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Volcanospeleology, Undara Volcanic National Park, Queensland, Australia, August 2010. pp 199–216

Kempe S, Al-Malabeh A (2012) Distribution, sizes, function and heritage importance of the Harrat Al Shaam desert kites: the largest prehistoric stoneworks of mankind? In: Al-Malabeh A (ed) Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Volcanospeleology, The Hashemite University Zarka, Jordan, March 2012. pp 57–66

Kempe S, Al-Malabeh A (2013) Desert kites in Jordan and Saudi Arabia: structure, statistics and function, a Google Earth study. Quatern Int 297:126–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.02.013

Kennedy D (2011) The works of the old men in Arabia: remote sensing in interior Arabia. J Archaeol Sci 38:3185–3203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.05.027

Kennedy D (2012) Kites – new discoveries and a new type. Arab Archaeol Epigr 23:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0471.2012.00356.x

Lanos Ph, Dufresne Ph (2019) ChronoModel version 2.0. Software for Chronological Modelling of Archaeological Data using Bayesian Statistics [WWW program]

Lemke A (2021) Literal niche construction: built environments of hunter-gatherers and hunting architecture. J Anthropol Archaeol 62:101276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101276

Lemke AK (2022) The architecture of hunting: the built environment of hunter-gatherers and its impact on mobility, property, leadership, and labor, first edition. Texas A&M University, College Station

Mahasneh H (1997) Es-Sifiya: A Pre-Pottery neolithic B site in the Wadi el-Mujib, Jordan. In: Gebel HGK, Kafafi Z, Rollefson GO (eds) The prehistory of Jordan II: perspectives from 1997. ex oriente, Berlin, pp 203–214

Maitland RA (1927) The ‘works of the old man’ in Arabia. Antiquity 1:197–203

Makarewicz CA (2013) A pastoralist manifesto: breaking stereotypes and re-conceptualizing pastoralism in the Near Eastern Neolithic.
Levant 45:159–174. https://doi.org/10.1179/0075891413Z.00000
000023

Makarewicz CA (2014) Bridgehead to the badia: new biometrical and isotopic perspectives on early neolithic caprine exploitation systems at 'ain ghazal. In: Finlayson B, Makarewicz C (eds) Settlement, survey, and stone: essays on near Eastern prehistory in honour of Gary Rollefson. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp 117–131

Martin L (1999) Mammal remains from the Eastern Jordanian Neo-
lithic, and the nature of caprine herding in the steppe. Paleorient
25:87–104. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1999.4689

Martin L, Edwards Y (2013) Diverse strategies: evaluating the appearance and spread of domestic caprines in the Southern levant. In: Colledge S, Conolly J, Dobney K et al (eds) The origins and spread of domestic animals in Southwest Asia and Europe. Routledge, New York, pp 49–82

Martin L, Edwards YH, Roe J, Garrard A (2016) Faunal turnover in the Azraq Basin, Eastern Jordan 28,000 to 9000 cal Yr BP, signalling climate change and human impact. Quat Res 86:200–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2016.07.001

Meshel Z (1974) New data about the desert kites. Tel Aviv 1:129–143.
https://doi.org/10.1179/033443574788529747

Miller H, Baird D, Pearson J et al (2019) The origins of nomadic pastoralism in the eastern Jordanian steppe: a combined stable isotope and chipped stone assessment. Levant 50:281–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1651560

Mischke S, Opitz S, Kalbe J et al (2015) Palaeoenvironmental inferences from late Quaternary sediments of the Al Jafr Basin, Jordan. Quat Int 382:154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.12.041

Morandi Bonacossi D (2014) Desert-kites in an aridifying Environment. Specialised Hunter communities in the Palmyra steppe during the middle and late holocene. In: Morandi Bonacossi D (ed) Settlement dynamics and the Human-Landscape interaction in the dry steppes of Syria. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp 33–47

Murray AS, Wintle AG (2000) Luminescence dating of quartz using an improved single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol. Radiat Meas 32:57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4487(99)00253-X

Nadel D, Bar-Oz G, Avner U et al (2010) Walls, ramps and pits: the construction of the Samar Desert kites, southern Negev, Israel. Antiquity 84:976–992. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067028

Nadel D, Bar-Oz G, Avner U et al (2013) Ramparts and walls: building techniques of kites in the Negev Highland. Quat Int 297:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.11.037

Nadel D, Bar-Oz G, Perevolotsky A, Malkinson D (2024) The v-shaped desert kites and their contribution to the Timnian economy. J Arid Environ 220:105120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2023.105120

Nadel D, Malkinson D, Bar-Oz G et al (2021) Small, sparse and effec-
tive. In: Betts A, van Pelt WP (eds) The gazelle's dream: game
drives of the old and new worlds. Sydney University, pp 253–304

Nissen HJ, Muheisen M, Gebel H-GK (2004) Basta I: The Human Ecology. ex oriente, Berlin

Parr PJ, Zarins J, Ibrahim M et al (1978) Preliminary report on the
second phase of the Northern Province survey 1397/1977. Atlal
2:29–51

Perevolotsky A, Baharav D (1991) The distribution of desert kites in Eastern Sinai and sub-regional carrying capacity: an ecological perspective. J Arid Environ 20:239–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(18)30712-2

Poidebard A (1928) Reconnaissance aérienne Au Ledja et Au Safa
(mai 1927). Syria 9:114–123

Poidebard A (1934) La trace de Rome dans le désert de Syrie: Le limes de Trajan à la conquête arabe. Recherches aériennes (1923-1932). Geuthner

Prescott JR, Hutton JT (1994) Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates for luminescence and ESR dating: large depths and long-term time variations. Radiat Meas 23:497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/1350-4487(94)90086-8

Preusser F, Degering D, Fülling A, Miocic J (2023) Complex dose rate calculations in luminescence dating of lacustrine and palustrine sediments from Niederweningen, Northern Switzerland. Geochronometria 50:28–49. https://doi.org/10.2478/geochr-2023-0003

Rees LWB (1929) The trans-Jordan deserts. Antiquity 3:389–407

Reimer P, Brown T, Reimer R (2004) Discussion: reporting and cali-
bration of post-Bomb 14 C data. Radiocarbon 46:1299–1304. htt
ps://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033154

Reimer PJ, Austin WEN, Bard E et al (2020) The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62:725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41

Reimer R, Reimer P (2024) CALIBomb [WWW program]

Repper R, Kennedy M, McMahon J et al (2022) Kites of AlUla county and the Ḩarrat ‘Uwayriḍ, Saudi Arabia. Arab Archaeol Epigr 33:3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12214

Richter D, Richter A, Dornich K (2015) *Lexsyg smart* – a luminescence detection system for dosimetry, material research and dating application. Geochronometria 42:202–209. https://doi.org/10.1515/geochr-2015-0022

Richter T, Arranz-Otaegui A, Boaretto E et al (2016) Shubayqa 6: a new late Natufian and pre-Pottery Neolithic A settlement in north-east Jordan. Antiquity 90:e2. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.182

Rokitta-Krumnow D (2019) The chipped stone industry of Mushash 163: a PPNA/EPPNB site in the Badia/northeastern Jordan. In: Astruc L, McCartney C, Briois F, Kassianidou V (eds) Near Eastern lithic technologies on the move. Interactions and contexts in Neolithic traditions. 8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Nicosia. Astrom Editions, Uppsala, pp 173–184

Rollefson GO (1989) The late aceramic neolithic of the levant: a syn-
thesis. Paleorient 15:168–173. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.198
9.5112

Rollefson GO (2004) The character of LPPNB social organization. In H.-D. Bienert, H.-G. K. Gebel, and R. Neef (eds), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Wadi Musa, Jordan, 21st–25th of July, 1997. Berlin: Ex oriente, 145–55

Rollefson GO (2019) Tumultuous Times in the Eight and Seventh
Millennia BC in the Southern Levant. In: Marciniak A (ed) Con-
cluding the Neolithic. The Near East in the Second Half of the
Seventh Millennium BC. Lockwood Press, Altanta

Rollefson GO, Köhler-Rollefson I (1992) Early neolithic exploitation patterns in the levant: cultural impact on the environment. Popul Environ 13:243–254

Rollefson GO, Rowan Y, Wasse AA (2014) The late neolithic coloniza-
tion of the Eastern badia of Jordan. Levant 46:285–301. https://do
i.org/10.1179/0075891414Z.00000000046

Rosen B, Perevolotsky A (1998) The function of desert kites - hunting or livestock husbandry? Paleorient 24:107–111. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1998.4673

Shakhmuradyan M (2020) The function of desert kites: an analysis of hunting theory. AJNES 14:1–27. https://doi.org/10.32028/ajnes.v14i1-2.969

Simmons AH, Rollefson GO, Kafafi Z (2000) Wadi Shu'eib, a large neolithic community in central jordan: final report of test investigations. Bull Am Sch Orient Res 321:1–39

Štefanisko D, Purschwitz C, Gebel HGK (2024) ‘Ainab 1 and the Eastward expansion of early PPNB traditions: unveiling neolithic connections between the levant and Arabia through the lenses of
chipped stone industry. Paléorient 49:83–108. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.3522

Svizzero S, Tisdell C (2018a) Desert kites: were they used for hunting or for herding? A review of the recent academic literature. J Zool Res 2:7–28. https://doi.org/10.22259/2637-5575.0204002

Svizzero S, Tisdell CA (2018b) Socioeconomic Development and Changing Reasons for Using Desert Kites to Kill Gazelles. In: Wood DC (ed) Research in Economic Anthropology. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp 223–247

Tarawneh M, Abu-Azizeh W, Abudanah F (2017a) Results of the South-Eastern Badia Archaeological Project in Al-Thulaythuwat area to the south-east of Al-Jafr during the period 2010–2015. Jordan J Hist Archaeol 11:73–93

Tarawneh M, Abu-Azizeh W, Abudanah F, Crassard R (2017b) Desert kites and campsites in the south eastern badia of Jordan: results of the South Eastern Badia Archaeological Project, Jordan. Al-Hussein Bin Talal University Journal of Research 2:1–31

Van Berg P-L, Vander Linden M, Lemaitre S et al (2004) Desert-kites of the Hemma Plateau (Hassake, Syria). Paleorient 30:89–99. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2004.4774

Waheeb M, Fino N (1997) ‘Ayn el-Jammam: A Neolithic site near Ras el-Naqb, southern Jordan. In: Gebel HGK, Kafafi Z, Rollefson GO (eds) The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997. ex oriente, Berlin, pp 215–20

Wasse A (2019) A joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks: hunting and herding in the greater Syrian desert during the PPNB and late neolithic. In: Nakamura S, Adachi T, Abe M (eds) Decades in deserts: essays on near Eastern archaeology in honour of Sumio Fujii. Rokuichi Syobou, Tokyo, pp 269–285

Wasse A, Rollefson GO, Rowan Y (2020) Flamingos in the Desert. How a chance encounter shed light on the ‘Burin neolithic’ of Eastern Jordan. In: Akkermans PMMG (ed) Landscapes of survival: the archaeology and epigraphy of jordan’s North-Eastern desert and beyond. Sidestone, Leiden, pp 79–102

Zeder MA (2012) The broad spectrum revolution at 40: resource diversity, intensification, and an alternative to optimal foraging explanations. J Anthropol Archaeol 31:241–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2012.03.003

Zeder MA, Bar-Oz G (2014) A response to Betts (2014). Quat Int 338:128–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.01.008

Zeder MA, Bar-Oz G, Rufolo SJ, Hole F (2013) New perspectives on the use of kites in mass-kills of Levantine gazelle: a view from northeastern Syria. Quat Int 297:110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.12.045

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.