Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau

Olivier Barge a, *, Jacques Elie Brochier b, Jean-Marc Deom c, Renato Sala c,
Arkadi Karakhanyan , Ara Avagyan d, Konstantin Plakhov e
d

a
Lyon University, CNRS, UMR 5133 Arch
eorient, Maison de l'Orient et de la M
editerran

ee, 7rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon, France
b
Aix-Marseille Universit
e (AMU), CNRS, UMR 7269 LAMPEA, Maison M
editerran

eenne des Sciences de l'Homme, 5 rue du Cha^teau de l'Horloge, BP 647,
13094 Aix-en-Provence, France
c
Laboratory of Geoarchaeology, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Faculty of History, Archeology and Ethnology, 71 av. al-Farabi, 050060 Almaty,
Kazakhstan
d
Institute of Geological Sciences, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, 24a av. Marshal Baghramyan, 0019 Yerevan, Armenia
e
Institute of Zoology, 93 av. al-Farabi, 050060, Almaty, Kazakhstan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Aralo-Caspian region includes a ninth of the total number of ‘desert kites’. These are located at a
Available online xxx considerable distance from the large concentrations of the Near East and the Levant. A combined
fieldwork and satellite image analysis, undertaken in September 2013 on the southwestern fringe of the
Keywords: Ustyurt plateau, allowed us to record and describe 143 kites of different morphological types and to
Desert-kites obtain new chronological data. Within the framework of the Globalkites research project, set up at the
Ustyurt
scale of the whole distribution area of kites, a GIS database was constructed using a methodology suc-
Chronology
cessfully tested in other regions (Armenia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia). This paper is a detailed description of
Spatial distribution
Morphology
the kites of this region, focusing on location in the landscape, morphology, architecture and chronology.
Despite the lack of accurate information about their use, relationships with animal migration routes can
sometimes be suggested. Our chronological data show that the south-western Ustyurt kites have a long
history of use and were abandoned only very recently. Some architectural details and morphological
features, commonly observed on Near Eastern kites, lead to the conclusion that Ustyurt kites belong to a
single phenomenon.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the Near East, the constructions made of long converging
stone lines ending in an enclosure received the name of ‘desert
kites’ in the 1920s, when British and French airplane pilots were
flying above them during the time of the Mandates. They have
attracted the attention of archaeologists for more than 30 years


(among others, Echallier and Braemer, 1995; Helms and Betts, 1987;
Holzer et al. 2010; Meshel, 1974; Morandi Bonacossi, 2014; Nadel
et al. 2010, 2013; Van Berg et al. 2004), but their size and the
almost total absence of archaeological artifacts render any conclu-
sions on their study very approximate (Brochier et al., 2014).
Questions remain about their function e what were they for? -, on
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: olivier.barge@mom.fr (O. Barge), jacques.brochier@univ-amu.

Brochier), ispkz@yahoo.com (J.-M. Deom), ispkz@yahoo.com (R. Sala),
fr (J.E.
georisk@sci.am (A. Karakhanyan), georisk@sci.am (A. Avagyan), elchor@mail.ru
(K. Plakhov).
their chronology e when do they date to? -, and the cultures
involved in their construction.
Over recent years, easy access to high-resolution satellite images
(Google Earth, Microsoft Bing), on which kites are generally clearly
visible, has allowed mapping the geographical distribution of this
wide-ranging phenomenon. The most recent spatial inventory
comprises more than 5000 kites (accessible on-line: www.
globalkites.fr), and it is likely that many others remain to be
discovered. The observation of satellite imagery has also brought to
light new regions containing these structures, thereby extending
and better defining zones where they had been previously known
(Kennedy, 2012; Barge et al. 2013; Kempe and Al-Malabeh, 2013).
The distribution area of kites is thus better known today, as well
as their morphological characteristics (size, shapes of enclosures
and of their entrances, number and location of cells, orientations
…). It thus appears nowadays necessary to establish a distinction
between several types of structures, morphologically very different,
which until then were grouped under the term of ‘desert kite’
(Barge et al., in press):

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
1040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
2 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20
- Kites made up of two long walls converging towards a pit
(Holzer et al. 2010; Nadel et al. 2010, 2013). Small in size, they
are not always visible on satellite images; their presence is cir-
cumscribed to the Negev and Sinai and they are relatively
scarce (seventeen in total, Nadel et al. 2013),
- Kites which two long walls ending in a quadrilateral open space,
bordered by a wall on the right side and a series of short
perpendicular walls on the left one (Brunner, 2008; Skorupka,
2010). They can be found in Yemen only, in the region of Marib.
- Kites with converging stone lines ending in an enclosure with
small cells around the outer edge. Often of large size, they are by
far the most numerous and are found in a huge area extending
the Aralo-Caspian zone to the Levant and Arabian Peninsula
(Fig. 1).
However, these abundant new data provided by satellite images
are of little use for studying kite architecture and chronology and
are not sufficient to understand well the logic behind their location
in the landscape. They thus need to be completed by field obser-
vations in order to test and enhance observations based on satellite
imagery. Fieldwork contributes to validate the comparability of
data from one region to another, whereas satellite image observa-
tions place field observations in a broader regional and global
context. With these points in mind, the Globalkites research project
was set up at the scale of the whole distribution area of kites
N For these reasons, we undertook an expedition in September
Ustyurt
S-W
E chosen as base camp. Given the paucity and difficult access to the
Armenia
Palmyrene Mountains
Harrat-al-Sham
Negev
2000
600
20
Yemen
0 250 500
km
Fig. 1. The kites in the main regions of the distribution area. Each circle is proportional
to the number of kites of the corresponding region. The regions were outlined from
groups of kites, which were made discrete in space, and show their own specific
morphological features (Barge et al., in press).
Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
(Crassard et al., 2014). Within the framework of this program,
fieldwork was carried out in several areas (Armenia, Jordan and
Saudi Arabia).
It is noteworthy that the Aralo-Caspian region, i.e., the Ustyurt
plateau spread between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, includes a
ninth of the total number of kites and is at a considerable distance
from the large concentrations of the Near East and the Levant.
Detailed studies of several plateau locations were carried out by
Yagodin in the 1980s (Yagodin, 1991), yet access to the works of this
Russian researcher remained difficult in spite of the publication of a
short synopsis in English (Yagodin, 1998).


With the exception of Echallier and Braemer (1995), who made a
passing reference to this set of kites, only Yagodin (1991) and then
Betts (1998) have established a parallel between this region's
structures and the Jordanian kites. Starting from the obvious hy-
pothesis of a use of constructions in the Ustyurt Plateau for hunting,
this comparison led them to suggest an identical function for the
kites of northern Arabia (Betts and Yagodin, 2000a). It is true that
despite specific morphological traits, the Ustyurt Plateau kites
clearly belong to the third family of kites, described above. The
presence of cells in the devices, whatever their diversity, is indeed
systematic. Now if the principle of convergent walls was noticed
elsewhere (Scandinavia, North and South America …), the presence
of cells contiguous to the enclosure and outside of it is specific to
kites one can encounter in the area between the Ustyurt Plateau
and Central Arabia. Moreover, the discovery of kites in Armenia and
the analysis of recent data confirmed the addition of this Aralo-
Caspian region to the kite complex (see Barge et al. in this volume).
2013 on the southwest edge of the plateau, in the Ustyurt Nature
Reserve. Kogusem, the unique water source of the region, was
earlier data mentioned above, the fieldwork aimed to record and
describe the kites of the area, and in addition, to obtain new
chronological data. For comparative purposes, it was relevant to
establish a data set using the same methodology as in the other
studied regions.
In this paper, we will not attempt to interpret these new, and as
of yet, partly incomplete data, as it is still too early for large-scale
comparisons. We will thus limit the present article to a detailed
description of the kites studied during the course of fieldwork
(morphology, architecture, chronology).
2. Methodology
The point of a study of kites in this region partly resides in the
collection of data following the same methodology as that used
in other areas surveyed. Set up in Armenia (Brochier et al., 2014),
it was described in detail in an article (Crassard et al., 2014) we
wish to point out to the reader. It consists in an approach
combining the study of satellite photographs, the observation
and detailed drawing of constructions in the field and of
archaeological soundings. Three scales were grasped: the general
scale of kite distribution, the micro-regional one grouping a set of
kites, and the scale of a single kite. The two first scales were dealt
with by means of documentation provided by satellite images,
and the two last by observations in the field. One cell in each kite
studied was chosen because of its easy access and its suspected
thick fill. Test pits, a few square metres wide, were dug according
to standard archaeological techniques. Biological materials,
suitable for radiocarbon dating, were hand-picked during exca-
vation and/or collected in the laboratory via 0.5 mm mesh wet-
sieving of large sediment samples. The terminology used for
the morphological description of kites is that defined in Crassard
et al. (2014).
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20 3

The Ustyurt is bordered by cliffs on all sides, a major topographic
discontinuity locally called chink. The majority of kites, locally
known as arrans, are located near or in direct contact with the chink
(Fig. 2). Kites were discovered in the south-eastern chink by S.
Tolstov in 1952 and systematically researched by V. Yagodin in the
1970e80s. He documented 54 kites divided into five groups (1-
North Ustyurt, 2-Aibuyirsko-PreSarykamysh, 3-Zharynkuduk, 4-
Kendyrlisor, 5-Beineu), and mentioned the existence of many
others (Yagodin, 1991). More information was provided by the
zoologist Plakhov, who discovered new kites along the western and
northern chinks during the census of the Ustyurt mouflons at the
end of the 1980s (Plakhov, 1994). A set of 40 new kites located in
three clusters along the northern chink (Dongyztau) was recorded
in 2007e8 via aerial campaigns by the Laboratory of Geo-
archaeology of Kazakhstan (Deom and Sala, 2008).
Of the 508 kites recorded by satellite imagery and studied by the
Globalkites project on the Ustyurt plateau (Fig. 2), nearly half are
located on the fringe of the south-western chink. Yet Yagodin's
article (1998) gives only a very cursory description of some kites at
the south-eastern extremity of this very dense set, which extends
linearly over some 150 km (Kendyrlisor group). He mentions
without any further details “odd combination of fences with cir-
cular structures”, which appear to be the numerous constructions
perceived on satellite images. A ‘rectangular window’ of

Fig. 2. Location of the kites and crescents across the Ustyurt plateau.

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
4 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20

Fig. 3. The four types of Ustyurt kites.

Fig. 4. Distribution of each type of constructions in the studied area.

approximately 100 km by 50, which takes into account the whole
group of kites within (143), was therefore outlined in the eastern
part of this area et will be the focus of the present study. It has the
advantage of including a large diversity of shapes: although the
proportions of each type can be different from those observed in
the Ustyurt sample as a whole, all the kite types are present, which
allowed validating certain observations for the entire plateau.
Within this window, 37 kites were visited, ten of which, chosen to
represent each of the identified types, were the focus of detailed
study. Test-pits were excavated in the cells of five of these
structures.
3. Typology and spatial distribution
The Ustyurt plateau is a large plateau of about 600 km from
north to south, and more than 400 km from east to west, located
between the Caspian and the Aral seas (Fig. 2). The topography of
the plateau is flat and monotonous, with an altitude varying be-
tween 60 and a little more than 300 m asl. Aridity predominates,
with precipitations around or lower than 100 mm per year, and a
very high seasonal thermal contrast. This plateau's rim is bordered
by cliffs (chink), to the exception of the south to south-eastern part,
which gradually becomes lower as one reaches the Amu Dar'ya
basin. The geographical distribution of kites shows that the chink
played a major part in the choice of location for the constructions.
However, the study of satellite images enables to at once distin-
guish several very different types. The typology, whose details are
given below (with one of more examples for each type), partly
recycled that proposed by Yagodin (1998). It is based on the kite's
general morphology.
It is possible to distinguish four main types of kites (Fig. 3).
(1) The first type can be described as the ‘regular shape’, as all
the attributes of a kite are present: two convergent antennae
ending in an enclosure surrounded by several cells. The kites
KZ1, KZ2 and KZ95, studied during fieldwork, belong to this
type.
(2) The second type groups shapes identical to the regular forms,
but the chink is incorporated into the enclosure. It will be
referred hereinafter to ‘chink enclosure’ type. The kite KZ28
belongs to this type.
(3) The third type can be called the ‘headland kite’. This is a
variant of the chink enclosure type: it takes advantage of the
numerous headlands created by the chink's irregular outline.
Only the entrance of the kite is built at the narrowest part of
the headland. Kites KZ78 and KZ91 are headland kites
studied during the course of fieldwork.
The two previous types display opportunistic shapes: as the
chink is often very steep and sometimes even vertical, there was no
need to build a wall. The chink was then included within the shape
of the enclosure.
(4) The fourth type may also present all the attributes of a kite,
but the shape, only encountered on the Ustyurt plateau, is
very peculiar. A triangular sub-enclosure lies to each side of

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20
the entrance, facing the opposite direction from the kite
entrance, with a cell at each tip. This type will be called the
‘double arrow’ kite (Yagodin (1998)’s arrow-shaped struc-
ture). Kite KZ18 belongs to this type.
In the area studied (Fig. 4), headland kites are by far the most
represented types (59%). This may be explained by the suitability of
topography. Although the distribution of headland kites is homo-
geneous along the chink, they are absent from several areas: on the
eastern part, where the chink is rather linear, or on the central part,
where the chink is not a cliff but only a slope break. Conversely,
when the chink is jagged (like in the western part), all the head-
lands are occupied and others kite forms are almost never present.
Chink enclosures (17%) and regular forms (17%) are less numerous
and more present in the eastern part than in the western. All these
types are connected to or very close to the chink. For the regular
forms, the mean distance from the chink is only 165 m (n ¼ 24;
min ¼ 40 m, max ¼ 698 m). On the other hand, the two cases of
double-arrowed kites are located at considerable distances from
the chink (6 and 17 km).
4. Archaeological context
The archaeological context of the whole Ustyurt plateau and
of the studied area is characterized by monuments of all periods
from Lower Paleolithic to modern seasonal camps (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Map of the archaeological sites in the studied area (SW chink) with a more detailed satellite view of the cultural landscape around the well of Kogusem.
Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
5
Concentrations of flint tools dated from the Pre-Mousterian to
the Upper Paleolithic periods are found at the border of the
Karynzharyk depression around the Karashek lake (loci Uzen
15e19 and Uzen 23) (Taimagambetov and Mamirov, 2012).
Neolithic tools and spalls (including microliths, blades, scrapers,
burins, lamellar cores) are found almost everywhere with the
highest concentration around the well of Kogusem where they
have been dated to the Final Neolithic (Praslov and Nastyukov,
1973).
Most of the Bronze Age sites are located along the northern
chink of Ustyurt and include stone walled settlements (Toksanbai,
Manaisor), vaulted burials and typical cist tombs (also suspected
in Kogusem) (Samashev et al., 2007). Iron Age monuments are
linked to both Massagetian and Sauromatian cultures from the
Pre-Aral and South Ural regions. They include cist tombs, kurgans,
vaulted sanctuaries surrounded by anthropomorphic steles and
menhirs (Dykyltas, Baite, Kyzyluyuk) (Olkhovskiy, 2000; Samashev
et al., 2007). Small kurgans are found at the south of Kogusem. The
Alano-Sarmatian period (IIIeIV AD) and the early medieval
Kangar-Zhetyasar cultures (VIIeIX AD) are represented by kur-
gans, stone burials and circular sanctuaries. All the following pe-
riods: Oguz (IXeXII AD), TurkmeneKipchak (XIIIeXIV AD),
Turkmen (XVIeXVIII AD) and Adai (XVIIIeXX AD) are character-
ized by settlements in the form of seasonal camps, forts, caravan
roads with caravanserais (XeXIV AD) and stone walled wells,
numerous cemeteries.
6 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20

The discrepancy between the very arid conditions of the Ustyurt
(reduced availability of drinking water, harsh winter and summers)
and the abundance of archaeological monuments has been ques-
tioned by most of the researchers. While many archaeologists see
the plateau as a privileged cultic place to hero-ancestors by pastoral
armies (Olkhovskiy, 2000; Samashev et al., 2007), others view
Ustyurt as a large ranch for managing the hunt of wild ungulates
(Deom and Sala, 2009).
In the studied area, very little chronological information has
been retrieved from the archaeological context. Although, an Oguz-
Turkmen tamga (XIV AD) already discovered by Yagodin was found
on the pit wall of the kite KZ259 (Karamaya 8) and an Adai tamga
on the enclosure of the kite KZ1 (Kogusem 1). They do not provide
any useful chronological information on the period of building of
these kites.
While an half broken greenish slate whetstone very similar to
Sarmatian findings of the Volga area was found at the surface of the
kite KZ279 entrance (Bosjira 17), no ceramics have been found in
the cells (surface and buried), or inside the enclosure. Potsherds
dated from the Oguz to the Adai periods were found in seasonal
camps, often with partial wall structures, on platforms of the chink
and at the edge of takyr depressions in the plateau. The presence of
scattered lithic industry at the south of Kogusem (in the vicinity of
KZ1-2, KZ19, KZ95), especially because of the wide chronological
range covered by their use, can only tell us that these loci were
favorite places throughout the entire Holocene period.

Fig. 6. Regular forms: map of kites KZ1 and KZ2 (Differential GPS mapping).

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20 7

5. Morphology
Apart from the general shape and association with the chink, no
other characteristics distinguish the first three types of kites. The
construction techniques of walls or cells are identical. Kite KZ18
might be different, but as it is the only ‘double arrow’ structure
studied in the field, it is difficult to draw conclusions and the
observed differences may be due to its poor state of preservation.
5.1. Regular forms
These kites have two antennae of comparable length, except for
KZ2, whose left antenna ends on the chink (Figs. 6 and 7). The en-
closures are triangular shaped, and the angle of the distal part is
replaced by a curve (Fig. 8). For the three cases studied here, the
entrance is concealed by topography: the enclosure of KZ1 is built
beyond a little hill, and the enclosures of KZ2 and KZ95 are located
behind the slope of a small hill. This is not always the case, as some
examples on flat ground have also been observed (KZ30, KZ50). In
all cases, the entrance is funnel-shaped and is formed by two
pointed appendages with a cell at each extremity. Other cells are
sometimes built against the outside part of the wall of the enclo-
sure in addition to the entrance cells; KZ2 has three cells, KZ1 one
while KZ95 has none. These cells are in an external position in
relation to the enclosure and are linked to the latter by oblique
walls, forming a sort of nascent point.
Kites KZ1 and KZ2 are very close to each other, possibly even
connected, and might have functioned together. This is an
exceptional case, as all the other kites of the area are indepen-
dent from each other. It was possible to distinguish two long
walls between the right antenna of KZ2 and the left antenna of
KZ1. As their function is difficult to understand, and due to poor
conservation, it is likely that the presence of these walls reveals
an earlier construction phase and provides evidence of
renovation.
5.2. Chink enclosure kites
As far as the enclosure, shape and arrangement are concerned,
these structures are identical to regular forms. They are different

Fig. 7. Regular forms: map of kite KZ95 (Differential GPS mapping).

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
8 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20

Fig. 8. KZ95, a representative regular enclosure shape: left, orthophotography, right, Hillshade of a Digital Surface Model. On this document, we can clearly distinguish the insertion
of the structure into the local topography.

from the latter in that one part of the enclosure is bordered by the
chink. This distinctive trait was also seen as relevant by Yagodin
(1998, type 3). In the case of KZ28 (Fig. 9), the chink incorpo-
rated in the plan of the enclosure is vertical, or even overhanging,
and has the same function as an impassable wall. The relative
length of the chink in the plan of the enclosure is variable for this
type of kite, but the principle remains the same. KZ28 presents a
double-pointed appendage in the right part of the entrance, a
frequently encountered feature even in headland kite types (KZ70,
KZ91, for example).
All the examples of chink enclosure kites observed during
fieldwork have only one antenna. The kite's orientation is always
oblique in relation to the orientation of the cliff; only one antenna is
necessary as it is impossible to escape through the chink. The angle
formed by the two antennae in regular forms is shaped here by one
antenna on one side, and the chink on the other.

Fig. 9. Chink enclosure type: map of kite KZ28 (Differential GPS mapping).

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20 9

5.3. Headland kites 5.4. Double arrow kites

Kites of this type are particularly frequent in the area studied,
where the chink is very jagged. This topographic configuration
appears to be particularly suitable, as almost all the headlands
were occupied by a kite. In addition, several examples of kites built
over older ones were observed and headlands with several gen-
erations of kites seem to be very common. When successive en-
trances are observed on the same headland, they should be
interpreted as several generations of kites rather than a single
complex kite, as shown by the different state of conservation of the
successive entrances. The use of the chink reduces the energy
involved in building to a minimum, so that the only construction
undertaken concerns the entrance. It is not necessary to build
antennae as the beginning of the headland outlines a large funnel-
shaped area. It seems that this type of kite is equivalent to Yagodin
(1998)’s type 4. The entrance is composed of two pointed ap-
pendages with a cell at each tip, and, as mentioned for the chink
enclosure type, these appendages can be doubled, on one side
(Fig. 10), or on both sides (Fig. 21). All sizes of headlands are used
and this principle of construction can be applied both to very small
or very large kites.
This very original shape (Fig. 11) is specific to the Ustyurt Plateau
and was referred to by Yagodin as an ‘arrow-shaped structure’
(1998, type1)). These kites are characterised by a funnel-shaped
entrance bordered on each side by an arrowhead shape. These ar-
rowheads have a cell at each tip. Apart from the size, the arrowhead
can be compared to the shape of a triangular regular form with a
funnel-shaped entrance. The rest of the enclosure is composed of a
large curved wall connecting the two arrowheads, which is not
often clearly visible on the satellite images. In the case of the single
example visited during fieldwork, the walls were made of an
extremely corroded stone alignment and the cells were not visible
at ground level. Some of the double arrow kites encountered in
northern Ustyurt do not appear to have been built with walls, but
with ditches (Bull and Esipov, 2013; Yagodin and Amirov, 2014). The
scarcity of stones in the natural environment could account for this.
In the case of KZ 18, it was not possible to detect antennae during
fieldwork, and the observation of satellite images seems to confirm
that this type of kite sometimes includes antennae and sometimes
does not. The double arrow kite KZ18 is large (4.68 ha), as is usual
for this type, and extends over a low part of the plateau. It is about

Fig. 10. Headland kite type: map of kite KZ9 (Differential GPS mapping).

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
10 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20
Fig. 11. Sketch map of two examples of double arrow kites; a) KZ18 studied during
fieldwork; b) an example from satellite image.
six kilometres away from the chink. Most of the cases observed on
the satellite images are also built on the plateau's flat inner sectors.
5.5. Crescents
Numerous structures appear on the satellite images, and these
cannot be considered as kites, as they have no antenna, apparently
no cells, and what could be an enclosure only seems to be separated
from the exterior by a shallow ditch (Fig. 12). However, the function
of these crescent structures may be comparable to that of kites
(Yagodin and Amirov, 2014). According to the study of the satellite
images, completed by one example observed in the field, we can
suggest the following description: a sort of very large half-ellipse,
with the ends closed by a point, giving it an overall general cres-
cent shape. The half ellipse is built on a flat area and is cut by a small
slope break, in such a way that both points are located on the gentle
low-rise slope downhill. As regards the example surveyed during
fieldwork, the length of the crescent is 760 m, which corresponds to
average observed sizes. In spite of a very clear signature on the
satellite image, it has proven difficult to identify crescents on the
ground. At most, we detected a slight change in vegetation and a
small depression of several centimetres, suggesting the impression
Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
Fig. 12. Sketch map of two examples of crescents; a) an example visited during
fieldwork, b) an example from satellite image.
of a ditch. It is easier to identify the ditch on the slope where the
points are located. The tip of the point is eroded, so that it is
impossible to know if it was originally closed, if it left the possibility
of a passage, or if a construction once existed there. No cells have
been identified on the satellite images.
6. Construction techniques
The following descriptions concern all the previously described
types of kites, except the double arrow type, of which only one very
badly preserved specimen was studied during fieldwork. Among
the 36 kites observed in the field, some differences could be
identified and are to be explained by two possible factors. The very
variable state of preservation may account for differences in
observed wall height and the availability of stones in the immediate
environment may determine the way in which they were arranged.
In any event, it was not possible to attribute these differences to any
particular kite type. In spite of their shape or configuration as
regards the chink, all kites share the same architectural details. In all
cases, the cells are the key element of kite architecture, since they
are the part of the construction that required the most energy and
care.
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20 11

Fig. 13. Building techniques of walls. a) an antenna made with a continuous wall (KZ2); b) the wall of an enclosure made with rubble, stone and earth (KZ2); c) a succession of cairns
outlines an antenna (KZ95); d) an enclosure wall built with parallel slabs in relation to its direction (KZ91); e) an enclosure wall built with slabs arranged perpendicularly to its
orientation (KZ91); f) and g) ‘openwork barrier’ wall (KZ279).

6.1. Antennae construction is more often associated with kites showing no

The antennae are made of very low rubble stone lines, and are
generally only one course of stone high (Fig. 13a). Very often, the
entire antenna, or part of it, is made of a succession of cairns (Figs. 7
and 13c). The cairns consist of stones several tens of centimetres in
size, stacked up on top of each other. The spacing between each
cairn varies from one to five metres and can be larger near the end
of the antenna. It is obvious that the sometimes irregular antennae
are not impassable, but rather make up a long line to be followed.
Taking into account their potential erosion, antennae are some-
times difficult, even impossible, to detect, even via field surveys.
Thus it is not always possible to relate them to the enclosure.
6.2. Enclosure walls
The enclosures are outlined by walls built in various construc-
tion techniques. When they are made with rubble and earth, they
appear today as a longitudinal smooth elevation a few centimetres
high (Fig. 13b) and it is difficult to assess their original height. In
places, several courses of stone are still visible. This type of
connection to the chink, such as kites KZ1 and KZ2.
When kites were erected close to the chink (KZ28, KZ91 for
example), or when there was a small rocky steep slope nearby
(KZ95), slabs were used. Along the chink, limestone outcrops split
into thin and solid slabs are frequent. These slabs are only several
centimetres thick and are sometimes more than a metre long. They
are easy to extract and, when raised, make a convenient con-
struction material. They are arranged side by side, sometimes
following the longitudinal direction of the wall (Fig. 13d), or are
sometimes perpendicular to it (Fig. 13e). In some cases, we
observed walls constructed as follows (Fig. 13f and g): the slabs are
lifted perpendicularly and mutually spaced out by several tens of
centimetres or even up to a metre. A long slab is then placed on top
of them, creating a sort of open work barrier. However, the spaces
would not allow an animal to slip through.
Whatever their mode of construction, enclosure walls are
continuous. Their preserved height frequently reaches 1.5 m for a
width comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 m. In the case of kite KZ97, all
slabs collapsed in the same direction and one raised slab was split
lengthways, thereby testifying as to strong earthquake action after
the kite's period of use.

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
12 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20

Fig. 14. Architectural details of cells. a) Cells are usually circular-shaped (KZ97); b) a pointed cell with two impressive standing slabs at the intersection with the enclosure wall
(KZ28); c) the substratum limestone was dug out over about 50 cm in order to lower cell floor (KZ2); d) an inclined level was created, on the external part of the wall of the cell, on
the enclosure side; e) horizontally arranged slabs over other vertically placed blocks (KZ152); f) the upper part of the wall is corbelled (KZ152).

6.3. Cells different characteristics were recorded in a database, and fieldwork

Cells are very well built circular or sub-circular constructions,
with a wall all along their periphery (Figs. 14a and 15). Cell diameter
is between 3.5 and 6 m (mean value: 4.5 m). The floor is always
lower than the enclosure floor (Fig. 15) and the test-pits in cells
show that the ground was dug down to the rocky substratum. In the
case of kite KZ2, the rock was carved out over a depth of 50 cm
(Fig. 14c). The difference in level between the enclosure and the
bottom of the cell is frequently of about one metre. The walls are
made with large vertically raised slabs, completed by horizontally
arranged slabs (Fig. 14a and e). They show continuous peripheral
corbelling in their upper part, forming a slight overhang towards
the interior (Fig. 14f). The wall separating the enclosure from the
cell frequently presents a tilted peripheral pile of slabs that forms a
sort of ramp on the side of the enclosure (Fig. 14d). These con-
structions appear to have been completely closed, as much towards
the exterior as towards the enclosure's interior. The connection
between the cell and the enclosure is sometimes emphasized by
very large raised slabs, some measuring up to 2 m in height
(Fig. 14b).
7. Statistical aspects
Different observations and measurements can be put forward
for the kites identified on satellite images. Data for about 20
testing showed that misinterpretations were rare. These de-
scriptions are thus reliable and enable us to refer to a much larger
sample than that observed during fieldwork.
In the studied area, all kites are independent of each other. Only
KZ1 and KZ2 are linked by antennae. Only 8% of kites have two
antennae while 74% appear to have none. The double arrow kites of
the area have no antennae and only six cases of headland kites
include a single antenna. The regular forms bear one or two
antennae and the chink enclosures generally have one. Average
antenna length is 186 m. Out of the few examples with two
antennae, the average opening angle between the antennae is 53
and the two antennae are of comparable length (average asym-
metry is 0.68).
The low overall number of antennae is due to the high propor-
tion of headland kites that generally do not have antenna. However,
antennae are difficult to observe on satellite images and even
sometimes in the field, and it is possible that kites may have more
antennae and greater lengths than shown by these results.
Entrances are generally funnel-shaped (85% of cases). This is the
case for almost all the headland kites (95% of cases), whereas 75% of
the regular forms and chink enclosures have funnel-shaped en-
trances. The double arrow kites show very wide entrances (50 m
and 183 m). For the other kites, median width is 31 m (IQR
20e42 m). Slope break, a common feature of kite entrances else-
where, is only rarely observed here (only 7% of cases).

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20 13

regular forms
chink enclosures
headland kites
frequency of kites
45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
number of cells

Fig. 17. Histograms of cell frequencies.

The surface of the enclosures, outlined by the edge of the cliff

Fig. 15. The cells are sub-circular and the floor is lower than those of the enclosure
(KZ91). Top: Digital Surface Model; Bottom: orthophotography.
when the chink is included, displays a very scattered distribution
(Fig. 16). The double arrowhead kites appear to be much larger
structures than the other types of kites. The two studied cases are
4.7 and 15 ha. There are also two singular cases of headland kites
that must be considered separately where the entrance is built on
the narrowest part of the headland far from the end, and therefore
the outlined surface is considerable (77 and 172 ha). Apart from
these exceptional cases, it appears that enclosure size is very var-
iable and ranges from small structures (between one and two
thousand square metres), to large enclosures of over five hectares.

head
land
kites

N
s
re
su
clo
en
k
in
ch

gen
era
l di
rec
tion
of t
he
s

chi
rm

nk
r fo
ula
reg

Fig. 18. Mean orientations of the kites. The three closed curves are the circular kernel
density estimates of circular distributions. For the two small samples of kites (chink
enclosure type and regular form), the 95% bootstrapped intervals around the means
Fig. 16. Tukey box-plots of enclosures areas. that cannot be properly calculated are not shown.

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
14 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20
Fig. 19. Evidence of the presence of a cell despite poor preservation.
However, half of them (IQR) have surfaces of between 0.6 and 3.1 ha
(Md: 1.4 ha). The box-plot of areas by type shows the large median
area and dispersion of headland kites, due to poor control over the
shape and area of enclosures in this topographic situation (Fig. 15).
Chink enclosures (Md: 1.2 ha, IQR: 0.7e2.4 ha), and particularly
regular forms (Md: 0.7 ha, IQR: 0.4e1.3 ha) appear to be of modest
size.
Generally speaking, apart from a few exceptions, the enclosures
do not display partitions, or closed-off pointed cells.
The median number of cells is 2.5 [IQR 2e3]. Two thirds of the
kites contain two or three cells. The distribution of the number of
cells, according to the three types of kites defined above, shows that
the median shifts from two for headland kites to three for regular
forms and chink enclosures (Fig. 17). The relatively low overall
number of cells is partly explained by the high number of headland
kites in our sample for which construction is limited to the
entrance. Nearly all the cells (95%) are pointed cells. Most of the
kites have a proximal cell on each side of the entrance (73%), while
23% have only one proximal cell and 4% do not have any. The kites of
this area are thus characterized by a relatively low number of cells,
nearly all at the end of a pointed appendage and mainly located on
both sides of the entrance.
The orientation of the opening of kites (from the interior to-
wards the exterior) appears to be linked to the general direction of
the chink. Headland kites are, by definition, oriented perpendicu-
larly to the chink and towards the plateau's interior (Fig. 18). The
chink enclosure's direction seems to mainly face west-northwest,
whereas the regular forms are often oriented towards the cliff.
However, there is considerable orientation dispersal and sample
size is too small to draw reliable conclusions.
Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
«old» kite
KZ360
0 25 50
m
more recent kite
KZ253
Fig. 20. Evidence of overhauling; KZ360 has been modified in order to change its
opening orientation.
8. Chronology
Fieldwork has shown that the state of preservation of the kites is
very variable. It is common to observe preserved walls with ele-
vations of more than 1.5 centimetres, whereas in other cases only
scattered stony alignments indicate the existence of a wall (Fig. 19),
and a round mark on the soil surface points to the former existence
of a cell. In some cases, this varied preservation status may be due
to the materials used, as some are more vulnerable to erosion than
others. However, all along the chink, the physical properties of the
available materials do not differ much from one place to another so
this factor cannot account for such variability. Thus, the preserved
elevation of the walls may be a rough chronological measure. Dif-
ferences in preservation have been detected in several cases of
superposed structures (KZ78 over KZ358, KZ70 over KZ364, etc.),
where the younger overlapping kite is clearly much better pre-
served than the older structure.
Examples of overhauling have been discovered. In one case, the
evolution of kite configuration was plotted (Fig. 20). In this case, a
first kite (KZ360) with a regular form and a funnel-shaped entrance
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20 15

Fig. 21. Evidence of different generations of construction; KZ78 overlaps an earlier kite, KZ358.

facing south-west was remodelled: the entrance and the south
pointed appendage were closed by a new wall, while an entrance
was opened through the north part of the enclosure (KZ253). It is
reasonable to surmise that the path followed by the animals had
initially been badly gauged, and that it was thus necessary to
modify the entrance.
Examples of headland kites with several differently positioned
entrances are very frequent in the area studied. Two and sometimes
three entrances may have been built successively, as shown by the
marked differences in preservation of the successive entrances. The
case of KZ78 is exemplary in this respect (Fig. 21): the superposition
of KZ78 over KZ358 is corroborated by the poor state of preserva-
tion of KZ358. States of preservation, superposition, refitting and
successively closed headland kites are strong indications of a long-
lasting building period.
Test pits were excavated in five kite cells (KZ2, KZ18, KZ28, KZ91
and KZ95). No archaeological material was found, except for a flint
flake and an end scraper at the very base of the KZ2.L01 infilling.
Owing to these two (reworked?) ubiquitous objects and to the
common occurrence of knapped flints all over the plateau, no
useful conclusions can be drawn from these finds.
Cell floors cut relatively deeply into the rock and bear thick
(KZ18, KZ2) or thin infillings with a common threefold stratigraphy,
regardless of sedimentary texture: fine-grained unit(s) at the bot-
tom, large blocks and slabs in the median unit, and a fine-grained
unit at the top. The first unit is seen as the utilisation and early
post-utilisation period (where chronological evidence is the most
valuable); the second indicates the collapse of the most unstable
parts of the construction, probably the uppermost slabs of the
corbelled walls, and the last denotes the slow infilling process until
slope equilibrium is reached. The loamy (KZ18, KZ2) or sandy
sedimentary textures do not appear to be linked to the nature of the
bedrock (coarse bio-calcarenite or thin-bedded limestone), to the
distance from the chink or, as shown below, to the chronology. In
any case, microscopic observations show that the dust fraction is
fully detrital and devoid of any biogenic and/or anthropogenic
component, even the most resistant ones. We only retrieved datable
material from two loamy cell stratigraphies, KZ18 and KZ2 (Table 1).

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
16 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20

Table 1
Radiocarbon determinations from cells 1 of KZ18 and KZ02. (*) small sample size: 0.7 mg C; (**) small sample size: 0.5 mg C. The terminus ante quem (TAQ) of the construction of
KZ 2 was obtained by Bayesian modelling using two different chronological models. BCal (Buck et al., 1999) and the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al., 2013) were used for
the calibration of the conventional radiocarbon ages (CRA).

Lab. Number Material CRA ± se TAQ cal BC/AD

KZ 18.L01
Poz 58061 charcoal (*) 2510 ± 25 BP HPD 95% [770e530 BC]
KZ 02.L01
Poz 58062 charcoal (twig) 65 ± 25 BP
Poz 58063 charcoal 210 ± 25 BP model 1: HPD 80% [1570e1790 AD]
Poz 58064 very small charcoals 125 ± 30 BP
Poz 57755 eggshell fragments (**) 205 ± 30 BP model 2: HPD 80% [1620e1680 AD]

8.1. KZ18 chronology
The thick stratigraphy observed at the deepest point of cell
KZ18L01 can be split into three units (from the bottom upward):
15 cm of coarse reddish sandy gravels, 45 cm of light brown silts
interrupted by reddish sandy lenses, with a continuous layer of
boulders (probably the result of cell wall collapse) embedded at
the base of the unit; 70 cm of compact silt. A single wood
charcoal, which does not derive from a twig, was retrieved from
the boulder layer, 105 cm beneath the soil surface. The AMS
result (Poz 58061, 2510 ± 25 BP, HPD 95% [770e530 cal. BC])
should only be considered as a terminus ante quem (TAQ)
(Fig. 22).
8.2. KZ2 chronology
A recently partially cleaned out cell (KZ2L01) was selected as it
presented easy access to the oldest deposits. Lichen development
on the upper part of the cell wall (and not below) shows that until
recently the infilling was about 120 cm thick. The preserved part of
the stratigraphy can be divided into two units (from the base up): a
decimetre thick (frost) laminated loamy unit lying on the carved
rocky substratum and a thick (~40 cm) boulder heap (probably the
result of cell wall collapse) in light brown loamy sediment. Wood
charcoal fragments were found in each unit, as well as small
eggshell fragments at the very bottom of the stratigraphy. In
addition, a charcoal twig was found at the top of the outer boulder
filling against the cell wall. Altogether, four AMS radiocarbon
measurements are available (Table 1).
The radiocarbon results (Poz 58062, 65 ± 25 BP) of the outer
boulder filling of the cell wall sample clearly show that this age
cannot be used as a construction date, but probably reflects modern
use of the place, likely when the cell had been partly emptied.
The three other measurements are from the loamy basal unit;
Poz 58064 and Poz 57755 at the very base of the unit in contact
with the bedrock, Poz 58063 at the top of the unit. Despite the
stratigraphic position of the sample Poz 58064, composed of
numerous tiny charcoal fragments obtained by wet sieving on a
0.5 mm mesh, it is probably the least reliable sample as some
fragments (in unknown proportions) may have migrated from
more recent layers. The three measurements may, however, relate
to the same event (Ward and Wilson, 1978; T ¼ 5.416, df 2,
p ¼ 0.07).
8.3. Discussion
The chronological information was obtained through Bayesian
modelling using BCal simulation software (Buck et al. 1999) and the
IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013). Two simple chro-
nological models were designed and will be presented successively.
In the first chronological model, we consider that the three
events in question are not ordered in the first sedimentary phase as,
from a geoarchaeological point of view, it is difficult to consider that
the tiny radiocarbon dated charcoals are not more or less mobile in
this thin sedimentary layer. The ethnographical accounts
describing hunting with arrans on Ustyurt show that this practice
was no longer in use after the 1950s, and perhaps even earlier
(Yagodin, 1998). 1950 AD has thus been used as a priori chrono-
logical information introduced into the model as a floating
parameter. In this first chronological model the early phase
boundary (a1) of the thin basal laminated loam is considered to be
earlier than 1950 AD. ai and bi are the early and late boundaries of
chronological phase i, following C.E. Buck's terminology.
The early boundary a1, i.e., the beginning of sedimentation in the
cell, a TAQ for the construction of the kite, thus appears to be
bracketed between HPD 95% [1310e1950 cal AD] or HPD 80%
[1570e1790 cal AD] (Fig. 23).
KZ02 TAQ
chronological model 1
0.02 HPD 80% [1570 - 1790] cal. AD
chronological model 2
Probability

HPD 80% [1620 - 1680] cal. AD

probability

0.01
KZ18, TAQ
HPD 95% [770 - 530 cal. BC]
0.08 0.005

0.04
cal. AD 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
cal BC
Fig. 23. Posterior probability plots for the calendar date of the early boundary (a1) of
900 700 500 300 100 the earliest sedimentation phase of KZ02, a terminus ante quem (TAQ) of the con-
struction/use of KZ02. Grey: following chronological model 1, black: following chro-
Fig. 22. Probability plot for the calendar dates of KZ18 terminus ante quem (TAQ). nological model 2.

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20 17

The second chronological model incorporates additional
knowledge about a1 and b1 from seismic observations. According to
Nikonov (1996), a strong earthquake in 1725 AD caused the
destruction of ancient constructions over all of Ustyurt, between
the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea. This was confirmed by our field
observations at a Turkmen-Kazakh cemetery near the studied kites.
In spite of the fact that the Turkmen mausoleums were carefully
built using anti-seismic stone locks, they are all profoundly
damaged whereas the Kazakh tombs, with no anti-seismic devices,
appear to be well preserved. According to Polyakov (1973),
Turkmen populations were replaced by Kazakhs in the 18th cen-
tury. This historical fact is in accordance with our observations and
with the 1725 AD date for a major earthquake. Some of the
observed kites bear the scars of a severe seismic event (KZ97),
probably the 1725 AD earthquake, while others do not, although
they present very fragile wall design (KZ279 for instance). This
observation implies that some of these constructions are very
recent.
Returning to our second chronological model, we may take the
1725 AD date as a TAQ for the laminated loamy basal unit of KZ02 if

Fig. 24. Map of the orientation of the double arrow kites and crescents and known routes of the saïga antelope (only documented on the western part), source: Institute of
Geography, 2010. Atlas of the Mangystau province, Almaty. Arrows indicate the orientation of the kites from the inside towards the outside. The long arrows represent large
scale migrations, and do not take into account topographical details. Considering the impassable marshy areas, the orientation of kites bears relation to animal displacement.

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
18 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20
we accept the hypothesis that the overlying rubble layer is not a
slow natural degradation of the overhanging cell walls but rather
the result of the 1725 AD seismic event. On this basis, the phase
boundaries (a1, b1) are older than our floating parameter (the 1725
AD earthquake). The TAQ for kite construction (a1) would thus be
bracketed between HPD 95% [1550e1680 cal AD] or HPD 80%
[1620e1680 cal AD] (Fig. 23).
In both cases, the TAQ of the KZ02 kite appears to be very recent.
It may even be very close to the date of use of this construction.
9. Considerations for the whole of Ustyurt
At a broader scale, kites are located on the periphery of the
plateau, mainly in the north and in the southwest. The location of
these structures, according to the different types of kites and
crescents, reveals some interesting facts (Fig. 2):
e Regular forms, chink enclosures and headland types are located
in contact with the chink, or in its immediate vicinity; double
arrow and crescent types are generally located further inland;
e Regular forms are dispersed all along the chink, and mixed with
the other types, except for the area overhanging the depression
of Erburun, where almost only kites of this type are found;
e Headland kites are mainly located along the south-western
chink. The fact that the chink is particularly jagged in this area
may explain this distribution. A few examples of these kites are
also found in the north where the serration of the chink is
comparable;
e Double arrow kites are localized in the north of the plateau,
although two cases were found in the south. They are not always
visible on the satellite images and it is thus possible that others
may be discovered there in the future. Many of them form
chains. The orientation of each kite opening is generally north
facing and perpendicular to the direction of the chain (Fig. 24).
These chains create real barriers across the plateau, and are
especially developed between marshy areas, so that it is
impossible to cross the plateau from north to south without
encountering such kites (Yagodin, 1998). Double arrow kites are
less frequent but are also present along the northern part of the
chink.
e Crescents do not conform to the definition of a kite, but the
spatial distribution of these constructions presents some
remarkable elements. Whereas double arrow kites are mainly
situated in the north, crescents are often located in the south-
west of the plateau, in the most arid and remote areas. In the
same way as double arrow kites, they form chains. Crescent
orientations are perpendicular to those of the chain. Further-
more, these chains are located between marshy zones. In the
median part of the plateau, crescents and double arrow kites are
located in the same zones, and sometimes even display the
same orientation (Fig. 24).
Considerations regarding the location, relative position and
orientation point towards the partition of kites into two main
groups: regular form, chink enclosure and headland types on the
one hand, and double arrow types on the other. These two groups
may be linked to different animal species. Indeed, in spite of mass
extermination at the time of perestroika, several species of un-
gulates continue to live on the Ustyurt plateau today and it is
possible to estimate livestock species for ancient times (Deom
and Sala, 2008). The location and orientation of double arrow
kites and crescents are consistent with the known routes of late
summer migration of the Saiga antelope (Plakhov, 1994; Singh
et al., 2010; Chahoud and Crassard, in press) and, according to
Bogdanov (1882, quoted by Yagodin, 1998) and that of the kulan
Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
(Equus hemionus). Other species could be potentially concerned
by kites, such as Jairan antelopes (Gazella subgutturosa), and Urial
(Ovis vignei). Kites from the first group may have been built for
two latter species, but this does not imply that they were not
used for the Saïga antelope, whose migration routes are not
incompatible with the location of kites along the southwest chink
(Fig. 24).
The northern chink is also the site of several isolated double
arrow kites, with orientations in keeping with slope orientation.
They are interspersed with the regular forms. It is also possible to
observe some examples (KZ264, KZ279, KZ289) of headland kites
where the pointed appendages of the entrance have been replaced
by an arrow. In some cases, the shape of regular forms (KZ47,
KZ310 for instance) is very similar to the typical arrow shape.
These facts show that although some general differences emerge
from broad comparisons, detailed studies reveal a more complex
picture. It is thus necessary to undertake comprehensive etho-
logical analyses and more field investigations in order to state the
relationship between certain types of kites and certain animal
species.
10. Conclusion
The 2013 fieldwork season has improved our knowledge of the
Ustyurt kites and provided us with relevant data for comparisons
with other fieldwork results. It has shown that the Ustyurt arrans
can be considered as kites, as induced from studies of satellite
images. Cells are always present and represent key elements of the
kite, with the most sophisticated architecture, as seen in Armenia
(Brochier et al., 2014), in Jordan and Saudi Arabia (in preparation).
Some architectural details (lowered level of cells, overhanging cell
walls) and some morphological peculiarities (nascent points,
proximal cells on each side of the funnel-shaped entrance)
observed on Ustyurt are also found in numerous places in the kite
distribution area.
The distribution area of kites seems to spread westward to the
Caspian shore where huge structures have been recorded (Sama-
shev, 2009) and almost 1000 kilometres eastward until the Sarysu
River basin, also on Saiga migration paths. The recent discovery
there of three regular forms and an Iron Age potential depiction of a
trap in the Terekty Aulie petroglyph complex (Sala, 2011) open new
perspectives for further investigations in other arid regions of
Kazakhstan.
Our observations tend to lead to conclusions similar to those
formulated by Yagodin (1998), none of our deductions standing in
formal contention with his interpretations. However, it seems that
some points deserve to be considered in depth.
At the chronological level, Yagodin attributes a period of setup
of the kite system of the northern region (region 1) e those
belonging to the type called ‘double arrows’ e in the second half of
the first millennium BCE. The only radiocarbon date obtained on
kite KZ18, belonging to the same type, is older and is nothing more
than a terminus ante quem. It would therefore seem that one can
make the use of this type of kite go back to more ancient times, if
indeed there are no chronological discrepancies between the
plateau's north and south. This first result only emphasizes the
risks inherent to the use of archaeological material in loose as-
sociation with constructions, for the establishment of a chrono-
logical framework. For the other types of kites in the region
studied (4-Kendryrlisor), Yagodin only has one chronological clue,
a tribal marking dated to the 13the14th century AD. It does not
however invalidate the dates obtained on site KZ2, showing that
the kites in the chink's vicinity were abandoned only very recently,
nor does it contradict multiple observations demonstrating that
their use extended over the longue dure
e. Our observations show
 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20
that all types of kites located close to the chink, even though
apparently distinct (regular forms, chink enclosures and headland
kites) can be grouped. Yagodin distinguishes several periods for
the development of these kites in the various regions, between the
third and fourteenth centuries AD. At least for the south-western
part of the chink (4-Kenyrlisor), the use of kites probably extends
until a more recent period, though the oldest period of construc-
tion remains to be established.
At the functional level, ethnographic accounts used by Yagodin
point to the function and use of these structures as hunting de-
vices. The set of descriptions indeed shows that techniques
described could fit with archaeological structures observed, but
we nevertheless lack information regarding exactly how they were
used. Some accounts could reflect recurrent morphological details:
to the following description (“hunters chase the Saiga, directing
them into stone enclosures with deep ditches in which they fall
down’), one could associate the ‘deep ditches’ to the cells which
we proved were located at a lower level than the enclosure and
whose plan is inclined for some (a sort of springboard at the
junction with the enclosure). Other accounts and descriptions are
less explicit: in particular, the one which speaks of ravines sur-
rounded by walls downhill from a pit or hole in the wall in which
animals are trapped, something which does not match our ob-
servations in the field. Likewise, no clue revealing the presence of
stakes at the bottom of pits on which the animals would have
impaled themselves esomething several times described e has
ever been discovered.
It is likely that the Ustyurt kites were used for thousands of
years and only abandoned very recently, at least for the construc-
tions close to the chink. However, these recent dates require
confirmation and more research is needed to define the chrono-
logical milestones of the oldest kites and thereby to determine the
historical chronological range for the use of the Ustyurt kites. No
clue allows one to imagine a use other than for hunting, but the
precise inner workings of each type of kite and the species con-
cerned remain to be established.
Acknowledgements
We would like to warmly thank the director of the Ustyurt
Nature Reserve, Zhangas Ustadov, who gave us the authorization to
work in this wonderful region; we also thank the staff of the
Reserve for their logistical support and to have so generously
shared their knowledge of the region. The expedition in Ustyurt
was made possible by the financial support of the French ANR
(National Agency for Research) which supports the Globalkites
project (2013e2017, No. ANR-12-JSH3-0004-01, to R. Crassard).
References
Barge, O., Brochier, J.E.,
Chahoud, J., Chataigner, C., Chambrade, M.-L.,
Karakhanyan, A., Re
gagnon, E., Crassard, R., 2013. Towards a new approach to
the ‘kites phenomenon’ in the Old World: the GLOBALKITES Project. Antiquity
87. Project Gallery.
Barge, O., Brochier, J.E.,
Karakhanyan, A., 2015a. Northermost Kites (in this
volume).

Crassard, R., 2015b. Morphological diversity and regionali-
Barge, O., Brochier, J.E.,
zation of kites in the Middle East and Central Asia. Arabian Archaeology and
Epigraphy (in press).
Betts, A.V.G., 1998. The Harra and the Hammad: Archaeological Explorations in the
Jordanian Basalt Desert. Sheffield University Press, Sheffield.
Betts, A.V.G., Yagodin, V., 2000a. A new look at Desert Kites. In: Stager, L.E.,
Coogan, M.D., Greene, J.A. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and beyond. Essays
in Honor of James Sauer. Eisenbrauns, Winona, pp. 31e43.

Barge, O., Karakhanyan, A., Kalantarian, I., Chambrade, M.L., Magnin, F.,
Brochier, J.E.,
2014. Kites on the margins: the Aragats kites in Armenia. Pale
orient 40 (1),
25e53.
Brunner, U., 2008. Les pie ges de chasse antiques au Ye
men. Chroniques ye
me

nites
15, 29e34.
Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010
19
Buck, C.E., Christen, J.A., James, G.N., 1999. BCal: an on-line Bayesian radiocarbon
calibration tool. Internet Archaeology 7.
Bull, J.W., Esipov, A., 2013. Ancient techniques for hunting saïgas in Ustyurt: the
remains of arrans. Saïga news 16, 18e19.
Chahoud, J., Vila, E., Crassard, R., 2015. Zooarchaeological approach in under-
standing the desert kites. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy (in press).

Chahoud, J., Chambrade, M.-L.,
Crassard, R., Barge, O., Bichot, C.-E., Brochier, J.E.,
Chataigner, C., Madi, K., Re
gagnon, E., Seba, H., Vila, E., 2014. Addressing the
Desert Kites Phenomenon and its global range through a Multi-proxy approach.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10816-014-9218-7.
Deom, J.-M., Sala, R., 2008. Ancient wild game management in arid regions: new
evidences from the northern Ustyurt plateau (Kazakhstan) [Regulirovanie
pogolovya dikikh zhivotnykh v aridnykh regionakh v drevnosti: novye svide-
telstva iz Severnogo Ustyurta (in russian)]. In: Nauchnye chteniya pamyati N.E.
Masanova: sbornik materialov nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. Daik-Press,
Almaty.
Deom, J.-M., Sala, R., 2009. Ancient wild game management in arid regions: new
evidences from the northern Ustyurt plateau (Kazakhstan) [Regulirovanie
pogolovya dikikh zhivotnykh v aridnykh regionakh v drevnosti: novye svide-
telstva iz Severnogo Ustyurta]. In: Scientific Readings in Memory of N.E.
Masanov: Proceedings of the Scientific-practical Conference in Almaty 25e26
April 2008 [Nauchnye chteniya pamyati N.E. Masanova: sbornik materialov
nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii Almaty 25e26 Aprelya 2008]. Daik-Press,
Almaty, pp. 135e141 (in Russian). English version online: http://www.lgakz.org/
Texts/LiveTexts/Ustyurttraps2009.pdf.


Echallier, J., Braemer, F., 1995. Nature et fonction des “Desert Kites”: donne
es et
hypothe ses nouvelles. Pale
orient 21 (1), 35e63.
Helms, S., Betts, A.V.G., 1987. The Desert “Kites” of the Badiyat Esh-Sham and North
Arabia. Pale
orient 13 (1), 41e67.
Holzer, A., Avner, U., Porat, N., Horwitz, L.K., 2010. Desert kites in the Negev desert
and northeast Sinai: their function, chronology and ecology. Journal of Arid
Environments 74 (7), 806e817.
Institute of Geography (Ed.), 2010. Atlas of the Mangystau Province, Almaty, p. 219
(in Russian, Kazakh and English).
Kempe, S.A., Al-Malabeh, A., 2013. Desert kites in Jordan and Saudi Arabia: struc-
ture, statistics and function, a Google Earth study. Quaternary International 297,
126e146.
Kennedy, D., 2012. Kites e new discoveries and new type. Arabian Archaeology and
Epigraphy 23, 145e155.
Meshel, Z., 1974. New data about the ‘Desert Kites’. Tel Aviv 1 (4), 121e144.
Morandi Bonacossi, D., 2014. Desert-kites in an aridifying environment. Specialised
hunter communities in the Palmyra steppe during the middle and late Holo-
cene. Studia Chaburensia 4, 33e47.
Nadel, D., Bar-oz, G., Avner, U., Boaretto, E., Malkinson, D., 2010. Walls, ramps and
pits: the construction of the Samar Desert kites, southern Negev, Israel. An-
tiquity 84, 976e992.
Nadel, D., Bar-oz, G., Avner, U., Malkinson, D., Boaretto, E., 2013. Ramparts and walls:
building techniques of kites in the Negev Highland. Quaternary International
297, 147e154.
Nikonov, A.A., 1996. Archeological and historical evidence of a destructive earth-
quake at Ustyurt in the 18th century. Russian Archeology 4, 80e90. Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, (in Russian).
Olkhovskiy, V.S., 2000. Ancient sanctuaries of the Aral and Caspian regions: a
Reconstruction of their history. In: Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements:
Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (British Archaeological Reports British Series),
pp. 34e43.
Plakhov, K.N., 1994. Situation of the population of Ustyurt mouflons in Kazakhstan.
Selevinia 3, 58e67 (in Russian).
Polyakov, S.P., 1973. The Ethnic History of the North-Western Turkmens in the
Middle Ages. Moscow (in Russian).
Praslov, N.D., Nastyukov, N.Z., 1973. Novye materialy po kamennomu veku
Zapadnogo Chinka Ustyurta (New materials about the Stone Age of the
Western chink of Ustyurt). In: Short Report of the Institute of Archaeology,
136KSIA, pp. 60e66.

Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C.,
Reimer, P.J., Bard, E.,
Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P.,
Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatte
, Ch, Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G.,
Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W.,
Richards, D.A., Marian Scott, E., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, ChS. M., Van der
Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves
0e50,000 years CAL BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4), 1869e1887.
Sala, R., 2011. The complex of Terekty-Aulie. In: Erofeeva, I.V. (Ed.), From Altai to
Caspian. Atlas of the Natural, Historical and Cultural Monuments and Sites of
Kazakhstan. Т.1, Almaty, pp. 557e569 (in Russian).
Samashev, Z., Kusherbaev, K., Amanshaev, E., Astafeev, A., 2007. The Treasures from
Ustyurt and Mangystau. Almaty (in Russian and English).
Singh, N.J., Grachev, I.A., Bekenov, A.B., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. Tracking greenery
in central Asia e the migration of the saïga antelope. Diversity and Distributions
16, 663e675.
Skorupka, M., 2010. Les «desert kites» ye
m e
nites». Chroniques ye
me
nites 16, 5e14.
Taimagambetov, ZhK., Mamirov, T.B., 2012. The Paleolithic of the Aral-Caspian Re-
gion, pp. 46e47. Almaty.
Van Berg, P.-L., Vander Linden, M., Lemaitre, S., Picalause, V., 2004. Desert-kites of
the Hemma Plateau (Hassake, Syria). Pale
orient 30 (1), 89e99.
20 O. Barge et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e20

Ward, G.K., Wilson, S.R., 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radio-
carbon age determination: a critique. Archaeometry 20 (1), 19e34.
Yagodin, V.N., 1991. Arrow-shaped Structure of the Ustyurt (Essay of Historico-
cultural Interpretation). Editions «FAN» from. Academy of Science of the Re-
public of Uzbekistan, Tashkent (in Russian).
Yagodin, V.N., 1998. “Arrow shaped” structures in the Aralo-Capsian steppe. In:
Betts, A.V.G. (Ed.), The Harra and the Hamad: Excavations and Surveys in
Eastern Jordan, vol. 9. Academic Press, pp. 207e223.
Yagodin, V.N., Amirov, S.S., 2014. Ancient hunting structures on the Ustyurt plateau.
Saïga News 18, 18e20 (in Russian).

Please cite this article in press as: Barge, O., et al., The ‘desert kites’ of the Ustyurt plateau, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.010