









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
17

American Journal of  
Geospatial Technology (AJGT)

Geospatial Analysis of  Archaeological Sites in Ikara Local Government Area of  Kaduna 
State, Nigeria

Qasim Abubakar Ahmad1*, Nafiu Garba Umar1

Volume 3 Issue 1, Year 2024
ISSN: 2833-8006 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajgt.v3i1.2447
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: March 13, 2024

Accepted: April 06, 2024

Published: April 10, 2024

Ikara Local Government Area of  Kaduna State, Nigeria has rich and diverse archaeological 
heritage. The research employed geospatial technologies, including Geographic Information 
Systems (GIS) and remote sensing, to analyze and document the archaeological sites in Ikara. 
The research aims to assess the Geospatial distribution of  Archaeological sites in the study 
area by mapping to locate the Archaeological sites in the study area, determine the pattern 
of  distribution of  the Archaeological sites and examine the finds and features in the sites. 
The research employed a mixed-method approach that combines field surveys, archival re-
search, and geospatial analysis. The research findings show fifteen (15) archaeological sites 
dispersedly distributed across the Eight (8) wards in the study area with Ikara ward having 
the highest number of  archaeological sites. Also, the dominant cultural materials across the 
sites are finds in forms of  potsherds and features in form of  House foundation. The cultural 
remains on the Archaeological sites are House foundations, mounds, granary, potsherds, 
iron slag, open grave, stone tools and grinding stones. Based on the findings, dispersed 
pattern of  the Archaeological sites in the study area was deduced from the data collected 
especially at the southern part of  the area of  study where the sites are found to be most 
concentrated. Base on the research findings, it is recommended that further research shall 
be undertaken using GIS and Remote Sensing Technology for effective Archaeological site 
discovery, management and preservation.

Keywords
Archaeologist, Archaeology, 
Archaeological Site, Geospatial 
Analysis

1 Department of  Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of  Physical Sciences, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: qasimabubakarahmad@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION
Archaeology is the study of  ancient human behavior 
based on surviving material evidence or remains of  the 
past (Fagan, 2000). It is seen as an earth science which 
investigates finds and sites; also, it is a social science 
that deals with all aspects of  human past (Sutton, 2000). 
Archaeologists mainly reconstruct, describe and interpret 
past human behavior and cultural pattern through 
material remains. This is after applying the systematic 
archaeological research techniques of  site discovery 
through reconnaissance or oral tradition, reconnaissance 
survey or ethnographic study of  the site, classification and 
analysis of  the finds and features discovered, excavation, 
if  necessary, interpretation of  the remains discovered and 
finally, the documentation of  the site (Kottak, 2000).
Archaeological sites are locations where the evidence of  
the past has been buried and preserved (Sutton, 2000). 
It is also described as a location where the material 
remains of  human activity have been preserved in a 
way that Archaeologists or Paleo- anthropologists can 
recover them (Sutton, 2000). A ‘Site’ or precisely an 
Archaeological site is any kind of  place, large or small, 
where there are traces of  human occupation or his 
activity found available (Kottak, 2000). According to the 
author, Archaeological sites consist essentially of  activity 
areas that comprise material cultural objects like tools and 
remains of  food in the form of  rubbish dump (Kottak, 
2000). Sites do not remain intact rather they change in 
course of  time either through repeated occupation of  

man and due to impact of  various natural agencies. They 
however remain intact on many occasions after the site is 
discarded and abandoned.
Archaeological sites are discovered either accidentally 
or systematically through aerial photography, old maps, 
oral tradition, reconnaissance/ pedestrian survey, remote 
sensing or excavations and artifacts, Ecofacts, fossils, 
and features are recovered from sites through excavation 
(Sutton, 2000). Archaeological sites also offer a tangible 
link to the history, values, culture, and traditions of  the 
Indigenous peoples of  the study area (Gadzala, 2014). 
Archaeological sites and remains are the subject matter 
of  reconnaissance (Grant, Coring and Flaming, 2008). 
Archaeologists use a wide range of  reconnaissance 
techniques to locate Archaeological sites and to investigate 
sites without excavating them’ (Grant, Coring and 
Flaming, 2008). Remains on Archaeological site surface 
can provide information about the life ways of  the past 
inhabitants of  an area and help in reconstructing socio-
cultural and economic life ways of  the past inhabitants of  
a site (Sutton, 2000). 
Numerous causative processes including erosion, social 
organization, resource procurement, mining, development 
projects, length of  occupation, and activity loci affect 
the formation of  an archaeological site and its material 
assemblage (Rossignol, 1992). Traditional survey tools 
used in finding and recording sites are taken from land 
survey. Archaeological surveyors initially used compasses, 
tape measures, stadium rods, and various other survey 



Pa
ge

 
18

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

tools. However, now employ electronic devices such as 
Total Stations and Global Positioning System (GPS) units 
to help them map an area or site (American Institute of  
Archaeology, n. d)
During the last decades, many countries realized the 
need for reliable and up-to date information about the 
earth, the society and the environment which could not 
be fulfilled with the conventional ways of  collecting, 
recording, updating and processing data. Thus, the use 
of  Geographical Information Systems (GIS) or Land 
Information Systems (LIS) came into an exceptionally 
big development specifically from the beginning of  ’80s 
(Tokmakidis et al., 2004).
Archaeologists have made great use of  GIS to discover 
ancient sites, artifacts and issues such as analyzing 
known locations and predicting unknown locations 
sites. Archaeological data used include Archaeological 
sites, geographical areas, historical antiquities, number 
of  antiques found about genetic data such as elevation, 
slope, topography, prediction of  geographic location and 
new Archaeological sites (Gaydarska, 2014). 
Archaeologists over the years have been making attempts 
to document Archaeological sites and their location 
using their systematic methods and techniques of  
inquiry like reconnaissance survey, oral tradition, written 
records, ethnographic studies and excavations but the 
methodologies adopted are slow, destructive and time 
consuming and therefore, could not locate properly the 
distribution of  a reasonable number of  Archaeological 
sites accurately within a specific time frame and the 
methodologies have always led to further destruction 
of  some finds and features on the sites especially during 
excavation. With the advent of  modern technologies like 
the use of  Remote sensing and Geographic Information 
Systems, attention of  Archaeologist and cultural resources 
managers has been shifted to the adoption and use of  
this tool to carry out sites locations and surveys, site 
mapping, landscape analysis, cluster analysis of  sites and 
intra sites analysis. This necessitates undertaking research 
using modern technology and techniques like GIS to 
study, analyze and document the locations and the spatial 
distribution of  Archaeological sites in this area using 
Remote sensing and GIS techniques so as to reveal the 
potentials and richness of  the areas in cultural materials. 
This will expose the potentiality of  the area’s rich culture 
history which will not only contribute knowledge to the 
existing literatures but to the body of  knowledge as a 
whole.
The African continent, West African region and Nigeria 
has long records of  human evolution and habitation and 
therefore, have reasonable number of  Archaeological 
sites but unfortunately, do not embrace much use of  
modern technology in the Archaeological site research, 
management, preservation and documentation (Barham 
et al., 2008). 
In Situ, observations are used in cultural heritage and 
Archaeological sites mapping (Felix, 2018). However, 
this procedure requires periodic observations which 

are practically difficult to combine with traditional 
methods and practices since this is time consuming and 
expensive thus, modern technologies mainly GIS and 
remote sensing are been used as tools for prediction at 
the Archaeological sites (Felix, 2018). Archaeological 
surveys in West Africa and Nigeria were executed mainly 
in coastal and hinterland regions, Thus, the analysis of  
cultural heritage in the region has been geographically 
restricted and lacking in regional dynamics (Faleye, 2016) 
In adopting spatial approach, the aim has been to explore 
the dynamic past of  the region’s history through material 
remains, writings, and oral tradition (Faleye, 2016). 
Nigeria is a country endowed with a lot of  cultural 
heritages sourced from its multi-cultural communities. 
Contemporary status of  most Nigerian cultural heritages 
and Archaeological sites (both material and non-material) 
is best described as endangered (Onyima, 2016). It is 
endowed with ‘about 29 game reserves, 1129 forest 
reserves, 4 game sanctuaries, 2 strict nature reserves and 
8 national parks’ (Marguba, 2008). The preservation of  
Nigerian cultural heritages is inarguably threatened by 
human activities, natural forces, biological and chemical 
agents among others (Okpoko, 2011; Ogundele, 2014). 
However, the little successes made over the years in 
the preservation of  Nigerian cultural heritages has 
been attributed to conscious systematic and scientific 
efforts and researches conducted by professionals in 
the disciplines of  archaeology, cultural anthropology, 
linguistics, ethnography, palynology, paleontology, 
geology, geography, museum studies, among other 
cultural resource managers (Onwuka, 2002; Ogundele, 
2014). 
Nigerian cultural heritages and Archaeological sites are 
faced with a lot of  challenges such as the influence of  
modernization, Christianity, Commerce, Civilization, 
Change, Development, Looting, and antiquarians 
among others (Oguyemi, 2002). Apart from smuggling, 
theft, vandalism and looting of  museums, another most 
threatening challenge facing Nigerian Archaeological 
sites and our cultural heritage is religious dogmatism and 
iconoclasm (Oguyemi, 2002). Ikara Local Government 
Area (LGA) in Kaduna State, Nigeria, sits at the crossroads 
of  rich cultural heritage and pressing challenges. The area 
boasts numerous archaeological sites that hold immense 
potential for understanding the region’s past, shedding 
light on pre-colonial settlements, migration patterns, 
and socio-economic development. However, these sites 
face a multitude of  threats, hindering their research 
potential and jeopardizing their preservation for future 
generations. Reasonable numbers of  Archaeological sites 
at different wards containing different cultural materials 
were discovered in the area. Given these threats, the 
research problem lies in the absence of  comprehensive 
geospatial analysis and documentation of  archaeological 
sites in Ikara LGA. This lack of  knowledge hinders 
effective protection, management, and utilization of  
these valuable resources. conducting a geospatial analysis 
of  archaeological sites in Ikara LGA is crucial for 



Pa
ge

 
19

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

several reasons. Among these reasons is Improved site 
documentation and mapping. Documenting the locations 
of  these sites will be of  great importance as it will serve 
as a method of  sites preservation technique and in 
demonstrating the rich potentials and uniqueness of  the 
area of  study in terms of  Archaeological sites and culture 
history. It can also be used to trace the migration patterns 
of  the people who lived in these areas as well determining 
the connections of  the past societies, determining the 
factors that led to their migrations to the areas and the 
abandonment. 
The research will employ the use of  Handheld GPS to 
collect the coordinates of  Archaeological sites in the study 
area which are going to be presented in Microsoft Excel 
and saved in CSV format and then imported into the GIS 
environment for presentation and further analysis. 
  
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Aim and Objectives of  The Study
The aim of  this study is to carry out the Geospatial 

analysis of  the Archaeological Sites in Ikara LGA of  
Kaduna state. This is expected to be achieved through 
the following designed objectives:

• To locate and map the Archaeological sites in Ikara 
Local Government area of  Kaduna state.

• To determine the pattern of  distribution of  the 
Archaeological sites in the area of  study

• To examine the finds and features in the sites.

The Study Area
Ikara Local Government area in Kaduna state, Nigeria is 
located at about 75 kilometres north- east of  the city of  
Zaria (Sowemimo, 2013). It is located between Latitude 
11010’ 60.00’’ and 11014’N, Longitude 8012’ and 
8013’60.00 E and having an elevation of  612m above sea 
level (Sowemimo, 2013).  It shares border with Makarfi 
in the west, soba and Kubau in the south and Tudun 
Wada, Kano in the north. Ikara as a district consist of  
five towns; Ikara, Tudun wada, Nasarawa, Sabon Gari and 
Hayin Bawa (Sowemimo, 2013) (Fig. 1)

Figure 1: Map of  the study Area (Ikara LGA)
Source: Adapted and modified from the 

Ikara Local Government area falls within the climatic 
zone characterized by dry and wet seasons. The dry 
season stretches between November and April. During 
this period, the absence of  rainfall and the dry atmosphere 
cause cracks to develop on clay soils (Iloeje, 1981). This 
period is often characterized by two temperature extremes, 
by tropical standards (Habu, 2001). The months between 
November and January of  the following year are usually 
cold and dusty, the dust being as a result of  the north-east 
trade wind from the Sahara. The temperature rises to its 
peak between February and March after which the south-
west trade wind that brings the rainy season will take over. 
The wet (rainy) season lasts from April to early October; 

the rains reach their peak between the months of  July, 
August and September.
Northern Nigeria is underlain by gneisses, migmatites 
and meta-sediments of  Precambrian age (mostly shists, 
quartzite, and banded iron formations) which have been 
intruded by a series of  granitic rocks of  late Precambrian 
to lower paleozoic age (McCurry, 1979; 1989). The 
bedrock geology of  Ikara Local Government like most 
parts of  north and central Nigeria is predominantly 
metamorphic rocks of  the Nigerian basement complex 
consisting of  biotic gneisses and older granites. The soil 
is a mixture of  soils disintegrated from the local granite, 
and loess soils brought down by winds from the north 



Pa
ge

 
20

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

(Iloeje, 1980). Generally, the soils are typical red brown 
to red yellow tropical ferruginous soils. The soils are 
rich in brown clay and sand but poor in organic matter. 
However, soils in the fadama (swampy) areas are richer n 
kaolinitic clay and organic matter, very heavy and poorly 
drained characteristics vertisols. 
Prior to the digging of  wells in individual houses and 
sometimes the drilling of  boreholes by government and 
non-governmental organizations, the major source of  
water that has sustained Ikara since its earliest occupation 
is the well water and stream. This stream is said to have its 
source from Kubau on the southern part of  Ikara 
Today, despite the fact that the stream retains water for 
several months within the year, most people prefer dug 
wells and drilled boreholes for fear of  contacting water 
borne diseases.
Ikara Local Government Area is within the broadest 
vegetation zone of  Nigeria known as Guinea savanna. 
Iloeje, (1981) described Guinea savanna “as the broadest 
vegetation zone in Nigeria, occupying nearly half  of  its 
area” (Iloeje, 1980; 1981). The vegetation changes with 
the seasons. During the wet season, the grasses are usually 
fresh and green, but in the dry season they wither and die, 
leaving the whole area bare and hungry, with tall skeletons 
of  charred trees and a ground surface blackened by the 
ashes of  burnt grass (Iloeje, 1980; 1981). Examples of  
trees found here are the locust beans Parkia biglobosa, 
mango Mangifera indica, baobab Adansonia digitata, shea 
butter Butyrospermum parkii, neem Azadirachta indica etc. 

The trees grow in clusters generally not more than six 
metres high and are interspaced with elephant grass 
growing to a height of  3 to 3.6 metres.
With over 195, 000 population estimate of  2006 census, 
there are 10 administrative sub- regions in Ikara which 
include: Auchan, Ikara, Janfalan, Kurmin Kogi, Kuya, 
Paki, Pala, Rumi, Saulawa and Saya- Saya (Sowemimo, 
2013). Majority of  these people are Hausa and Fulani 
who speak Hausa language and practice mainly Islam and 
Christianity religion.
There are also other outsiders residing in the area who 
are often seen as the minorities which include Yoruba 
and Igbo, who are trading different kinds of  goods and 
services in the area.

METHODOLOGY
Reconnaissance Survey
The Reconnaissance survey of  the archaeological sites 
in the study area was carried out by foot during which 
fifteen (15) Archaeological sites were discovered, and the 
sites’ geographic coordinates were taken using handheld 
Global Positioning Systems.

Data and Sources
Geographic data (Field data) in forms of  coordinates 
was acquired during the reconnaissance survey of  the 
Archaeological sites using the Global Positioning System 
device. Detailed description of  the data types and sources 
used in this study are presented in Table 1

Table 1: Data Type and Source
Data Type Sources Purpose 
Geographic 
Coordinate

Global Positioning Systems (Handheld GPS) For mapping the location of  the archaeological 
sites in the study area

Oral information Oral Informants Serves as a guide for Archaeological site discovery 
and locating the position of  finds and features 
on the sites as well as their interpretations.

Map Adapted and modified from the administrative 
map of  Kaduna State

To show the location of  the area of  study.

Secondary data Department of  Archaeology Library 
(Published research projects and thesis)

Obtaining more relevant information about the 
sites in the study area.

Source: Author’s Compilation (2021)

Data Collection Procedure
The coordinates of  the positional locations of  the 
archaeological sites in the area of  study were collected 
using the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) receiver.  
The latitude, longitude and elevation of  these sites were 
recorded to give X, Y and Z coordinates of  the sites 
under study. 

Data Processing
The acquired GPS coordinates data are acquired in Degree, 
minutes and seconds but are converted to Decimal degrees 
for easy use. The different data processing techniques 
employed in this research include the following:

Preparation of  Data
The data was prepared in Microsoft Excel in which the 
Latitude and Longitude of  the Archaeological sites are 
recorded, saved in CSV format before being imported 
into the ArcGIS environment. 

Google Imagery Acquisition
The goggle earth imagery of  the area was acquired 
and then georeferenced or was assigned a geographical 
coordinate so that the GIS mapping software can place 
the image in its appropriate real-world location to form 
the boundary of  the area of  study.  



Pa
ge

 
21

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

Digitization
The georeferenced goggle earth map was also digitized 
to get the boundary or extent of  the region under study.

Mapping of  the Area
After the georeferenced goggle earth imagery of  the 
area has been digitized, it was then imported into the 
ArcGIS 10.8 software and subsequently, the coordinates 
of  the locations of  the archaeological sites stored in excel 
format was also imported to show the spatial distribution 
of  the sites across the area of  study.

Objective 1
To locate and map the Archaeological sites in Ikara 
Local Government area of  Kaduna state was achieved 
by mapping to show the locations of  the Archaeological 
sites in the study area using the geographic data (latitudes 
and longitudes) acquired through reconnaissance survey.

Objective 2
To determine the pattern of  distribution of  the 

Archaeological sites in the area of  study.
This was achieved by using the sites map to analyze the 
spatial arrangement of  the Archaeological sites in the 
study area using visual impression. 

Objective 3
To examine the finds and features in the sites.
This was achieved by creating a Geodatabase of  the 
various Archaeological sites in the study area which 
contain the site’s name, ward name, geographic locations 
and the cultural materials present of  the site.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Location and Mapping of  Archeological Sites in the 
Study Area
An archaeological site is a place in which evidence of  
past activity is preserved, and which has been, or may 
be, investigated using the discipline of  archaeology 
and represents a part of  the archaeological record. The 
archaeological sites in the study area were identified and 
presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Location of  Archaeological Sites in the Study Area
S/N Political Ward Name of  Site Finds Features
1. Janfalan Anguwan Liman Potsherds Granary, House 

Foundation, Mounds
Malikanchi Potsherds Open Grave

2. Ikara Gidan Malam Potsherds Mounds
Sabawa Potsherds, Iron Slags None 

 Unguwan Noma Stone tools, Potsherds None 
Anguwan Najide Potsherds None
Anguwan Karofi Iron Slags, Potsherds None
Tsohon Ma Iron Slags, Potsherds None

3. Kurmin Kogi Danlawal Iron Slags, Potsherds None 
Kurmin Kogi Potsherds, Iron Slags, Grinding Stones None 

4. Paki Paki Iron Slags House Foundation
5. Gimba Gimba Potsherds None 
6. Gadas Gadas Potsherds None 
7. Rumi Shadauro Potsherds None 
8. Auchan Auchan Potsherds, Stone Tools None 

Source: Field Survey (2022)

It is obvious from Figure 2 below that there are fifteen 
(15) archaeological sites belonging to different wards in 
the study area namely: Anguwan Liman, Gidan Malam, 
Sabawa, Anguwan Noma, Danlawal, Kurmin Kogi, Paki, 
Gimba, Anguwan Karofi, Tsohon Ma, Gadas, Shadauro, 
Malikanchi, Anguwan Najide and Auchan. 
The result shows that there are six (6) archaeological 
sites in Ikara ward, two (2) in Kurmin Kogi ward, two 
(2) in Jamfalan, and two (2) in Auchan ward respectively. 
This implies that Ikara ward has the highest number of  
archaeological sites in the study area. This indicates that 
Ikara ward provides Ikara LGA with the opportunity to 

learn about its past cultures and also earn recognition 
in terms of  rich cultural materials through the study of  
artifacts and other cultural remains on the sites. Studying 
these artifacts and features will helps to provide the study 
area with some insight about what life was like for people 
who left behind no written record.
The finds (movable cultural materials) in the sites are 
potsherds, stones tools and iron slags while the features 
include: House foundation, open grave, granary and 
mounds. The most common finds in the sites are potsherds 
and iron slags while the most common feature is House 
foundation, all of  which have cultural significances.



Pa
ge

 
22

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

The table 3 above show that Ikara ward has the highest 
number of  Archaeological sites with six (6) sites which   
make up 40% of  the total number of  sites in the study 
area and which is followed by Janfalan ward and Kurmin 
Kogi ward with two sites each of  which constitute 13.3% 
of  the total number.
The table 4 above show that the majority of  the sites in 
the study area have finds in forms of  Potsherds and Iron 
slags and grinding stones while 4 (26.6%) have both finds 
and features while no site with only features was found.
This show that the most common cultural remains on the 
sites in the study area are finds which form 73.3% of  the 
cultural remains in the sites

Figure 2: Existing Archaeological Sites in the Study Area
Source: Author’s field survey (2022)

Table 3: Political ward with highest number of  
Archaeological Sites in the Study Area
S/N Political 

Ward 
Number of  
Archaeological 
Sites

Percentage 
(%)

1. Janfalan 2 13.3
2. Ikara 6 40.0
3. Kurmin Kogi 2 13.3
4. Paki 1 6.67
5. Gimba 1 6.67
6. Gadas 1 6.67
7. Rumi 1 6.67
8. Auchan 1 6.67
Total number of  
Sites

15 100

Source: Field Survey (2022)

Table 4: Different forms of  Cultural materials across 
the Archaeological Sites in the Study Area
S/N Cultural 

material
Number of  
Archaeological 
Sites

Percentage 
(%)

1. Finds only 11 73.3
2. Features only 0 0.0
3. Finds and 

Features
4 26.67

Total number of  
Sites

15 100

Source: Field Survey (2022)

Table 5: Different types of  finds across the 
Archaeological Sites at the Study Area
S/N Finds Number of  

sites with the 
finds

Percentage 
(%)

1. Potsherds 14 93.3
2. Iron slags 6 40.0
3. Stone tools 3 20
Total number of  
Sites with finds

15 100

Source: Field Survey (2022)

Table 5 above show that potsherds are the dominant 
cultural remains on the sites in the study area with 93.3% 
of  the total finds as it was found in all the sites, iron slags 
seconded with 40% and it was found at six (6) sites which 
form 40% of  the total number of  sites with finds.



Pa
ge

 
23

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

The analysis of  Archaeological sites with features show 
that house foundation is the dominant feature across all 
the sites in the study area with 50%, followed by mounds 
and open graves in equal proportion of  25% each 

Spatial Pattern of  Distribution of  Archaeological 
Sites in the Study Area
The spatial pattern of  a distribution is defined by the 
arrangement of  individual entities in space and the 
geographic relationships among them. The capability 
of  evaluating spatial patterns is a prerequisite to 
understanding the complicated spatial processes 
underlying the distribution of  a phenomenon. The 
Average Nearest Neighbor tool measures the distance 
between each feature centroid and its nearest neighbor’s 
centroid location. It then averages all these nearest 
neighbor distances. If  the average distance is less than 
the average for a hypothetical random distribution, 
the distribution of  the features being analyzed is 
considered clustered. If  the average distance is greater 
than a hypothetical random distribution, the features 
are considered dispersed. The pattern of  distribution of  
archaeological sites is presented in Figure 3.

Table 6: Different types of  features across the 
Archaeological Sites at the Study Area
S/N Finds Number of  

sites with 
the feature

Percentage 
(%)

1. House Foundation 2 50
2. Mound 1 25
3. Open grave 1 25
Total number of  Sites 
with features

15 100

Source: Field Survey (2022)

Figure 3: Pattern of  Distribution of  Archaeological Sites in the Study Area
Source: Author’s field survey (2022)

Figure 3 shows random points at 0.01% significance level 
with the Nearest Neighbour Ratio (NNR) of  1.259597. 
Given the z-score of  -1.92343061128 is very far from 1 
and did not falls within the range of  -1.65 to 1.65 which 
makes it dispersed distribution which implies that the 
archaeological sites are isolated in the study area. Spatial 
distribution of  archaeological sites in the study area is 
dispersed, the isolated spatial pattern of  archaeological 
sites in the study represents a huge opportunity to 
increase efforts to protect and promote archaeological 
tourism. The result corroborates the findings of  Obong, 
Ajake, Aniah, Ukam, Uttah and Obong, (2015) who 
utilized Nearest Neighbour analysis to examine the spatial 
pattern of  archaeological tourism sites and reported that 
they are dispersed. Even with the dispersed distribution 
of  archaeological sites, some wards like Kurmin Kogi and 

Ikara still have high concentration of  sites. This could be 
because they are the commercial and traditional center of  
the study area. 

Examine the Finds and Features in the Sites
A Geo-Spatial database of  all the find and features in 
the archaeological sites was created for relevant Query 
Statements and subsequent analysis. Thus, coordinates 
of  various points of  interest (Archaeological sites) are 
obtain using GPS and all the necessary information for 
each point was entered into its layer’s attribute table and 
stored. 
This was achieved by adding required number of  fields 
(columns) to the table and inputting the data for all 
the Archaeological and tourism sites features in their 
corresponding records (rows) in Microsoft Excel and 



Pa
ge

 
24

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

imported into ArcGIS 10.8 software environment using 
Arc catalog to enable Archaeologist and Tourist to 
identify which artefact or features are found in a particular 
Archaeological site. 
Furthermore, Geodatabase plays an important role in GIS 
analysis. It offers opportunity for information on find or 
features to be stored, manipulated, retrieved and updated 
with time. It is the process whereby real-world entities 
and their interrelationships are analyzed and modeled 
in such a way that maximum benefits are derived while 
utilizing minimum amount of  data (Damilola, 2015). 
A geodatabase was created not just to help in satisfying 
the third objectives of  this work, but also for future 
purposes since data in a database can be updated with 
time. The geodatabase contains both spatial and attribute 

data of  the cultural remains in the sites. These cultural 
remains are finds or artefacts like potsherds, iron slags 
and stone tools while the features are house foundation, 
mounds and granary. 
The research findings presented in the table show that, 
out of  the fifteen Archaeological sites, all the fifteen (15) 
of  them contain ‘finds’ majority of  which are potsherds, 
iron slags and relatively few have grinding stones and 
stone tools. The dominant features in the sites are house 
foundations, mounds and one granary and an open grave. 
An inventory of  the Geodatabase is presented in Figure 4.
From the query of  Figure 4, it can be seen that there 
are fifteen (15) archaeological sites in the study area. It 
also shows the numerous finds and features found at the 
various archaeological sites.

Figure 4: Inventory of  Features of  Archaeological Sites
Source: Author’s field survey (2022)

Figure 5: Archaeological Sites with Only Potsherds in the Study Area
Source: Author’s field survey (2022)



Pa
ge

 
25

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

A query in to the database as seen in Figure 5 reveal that 
only four (4) site have only potsherd in the study area, 
hence no feature was found in the sites. Mainly these sites 
are located in Kurmin Kogi, Ikara and Jamfalan wards in 
the study area.

CONCLUSION
The study analyzed the spatial distribution of  
Archaeological sites in Ikara Local Government Area of  
Kaduna State Nigeria. GIS and quantitative techniques 
were adopted to locate and map Archaeological sites, 
examine the pattern of  distribution of  archaeological 
sites and create a geodatabase for Archaeological sites 
to examine the finds and features across the sites in the 
study area. 
The study shows Eight (8) wards with fifteen (15) 
Archaeological sites in the study area. The sites are namely: 
Anguwan Liman, Gidan Malam, Sabawa, Unguwan 
Noma, Danlawal, Kurmin Kogi, Paki, Gimba, Anguwan 
Karofi, Tsohon Ma, Gadas, Shadauro, Malikanchi, 
Anguwan Najide and Auchan. 
The result shows that there are six (6) archaeological 
sites in Ikara ward, (2) in Kurmin Kogi ward, two (2) in 
Jamfalan, and one (1) in Auchan ward respectively with 
Ikara ward having the highest number of  Archaeological 
sites in the study area.
The study also reveals that the dominant cultural materials 
across the sites in the study area are found in the form 
of  potsherds and features in the form of  the House 
foundations. 
Furthermore, the study also shows random points at 
0.01% significance level with the Nearest Neighbour 
Ratio (NNR) of  1.259597. Given the z-score of  
-1.92343061128 is very far from 1 and did not fall within 
the range of  -1.65 to 1.65, which makes it a dispersed 
distribution, which implies that the archaeological sites 
are isolated in the study area.
In conclusion the study identified fifteen (15) 
Archaeological sites within the study area and further 
analyzed their distributions and patterns. The cultural 
remains on these Archaeological sites are House 
foundations, mounds, granary, potsherds, iron slag, open 
grave, stone tools and grinding stones.
Based on the findings of  this research, the dispersed 
pattern of  the Archaeological sites in the study area 
was deduced from the data collected, especially in the 
southern part of  the area of  study, where these sites are 
found to be most concentrated. 

REFERENCES
Allen, S., Green, E. and Zubrow E. (1990). Interpreting 

Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, 
London

Anderson, K. L., & Burke, A. (2008). Refining the 
definition of  cultural levels at Karabi Tamchin: a 
quantitative approach to vertical intra-site spatial 
analysis. Journal of  Archaeological Science, 35(8), 2274-
2285.

Armstrong, D. & Mark W. (2004). An East Indian 
Laborers’ Household in Nineteenth-Century Jamaica: 
A Case for Understanding Cultural Diversity through 
Space, Chronology, and Material Analysis.    Historical 
Archaeology 38(2), 9-21.

Ashurst, J. & Shalom, A. (2012). The Demise, 
Discovery, Destruction and Salvation of  a Ruin 
(2007) in “Archaeological Sites: Conservation and 
Management”. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation 
Institute. pp. 353–364.

Bate, L., Emma K. (2011). Ceramic Technology and 
Spanish Contact: Analysis of  Artifacts from the Long 
Bay Site, San Salvador Island, The Bahamas. Ph.D. 
Dissertation, Department of  Anthropology, Indiana 
University, Bloomington.

Belmonte, J., Esteban, C., Cuesta, L., Gonzarez, J. (1999). 
Pre-Islamic burial monuments in Northern and 
Saharan Morocco. Archaeo- astronomy 1999, 30, 21.

Benjamin W. K & Christopher R. D. (2004). Ghana’s 
Vanishing Past: Development, Antiquities, and the 
Ghana’s Vanishing Past: Development, Antiquities, 
and the Destruction of  the Archaeological Record. 
African Archaeological Review v. 21, #2 , pp. 89- 128

Bewley, R., Donoghue, D., Gaffney, V., Van Leusen, M., 
Wise, A (1999). Archiving Aerial Photography and 
Remote Sensing Data: A Guide to Good Practice; 
Archaeology Data Service; Oxbow Books: Oxford, 
UK.

Burrough, P. (1994). Principles of  Geographical 
Information Systems for land resources Assessment. 
Oxford Science

Constantinidis, D. (2009). GIS for managing the analysis 
and protection of  archaeological remains in the 
Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area. Archaeology in 
Oceania, 44(2), 112-118.

Cunliffe, E. (2014). Archaeological Site Damage in the 
Cycle of  War and Peace:: A Syrian Case Study. Journal 
of  Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, 
2(3), 229-247.

Curet, L. A. (1992). House structure and cultural change 
in the Caribbean: Three case studies from Puerto 
Rico. Latin American Antiquity, 3(2), 160-174.

Fagan, M. B (2000). Ancient Lives. New York: Preston 
hall Publishers

Faleye, O. A. (2016). Toward a Historical Archaeology 
of  West African Borderlands. International Journal of  
Modern Anthropology, 1(9), 77-89.

Fitz, P. and Scott, M. (2006). A Critical Approach to 
14C Dating in the Caribbean: Using Chronometric 
Hygiene to Evaluate Chronological Control and 
Prehistoric Settlement. Latin American Antiquity 17, 
389-418.  

Fitzpatrick, S. M., Kappers, M., & Kaye, Q. (2006). 
Coastal erosion and site destruction on Carriacou, 
West Indies. Journal of  Field Archaeology, 31(3), 251-262.

Fitzpatrick, S. M., Kaye, Q., Kappers, M., Technics, I. T. S., 
& Majofskistraat, T. (2004). A radiocarbon sequence 
for the Sabazan site, Carriacou, West Indies. Journal of  



Pa
ge

 
26

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 3(1) 17-26, 2024

Caribbean Archaeology, 5(1), 1-11.
Gaydarska, B. (2014). Spatial analysis in field Archaeology. 

In Smith C (eds). Encyclopedia of  Global 
Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY 

Grant, J., Gorin, S. and Fleming, N. (2008). The 
Archaeology Course Book; An Introduction to 
Themes, Method and Skills’’ (3rd ed.). Routledge 
Taylor and Francis Group, London.

Greene, K., (1991). Archaeology; An Introduction 
(Revised Edition). London, Batsford Ltd.

Jones, R. E. Sarris, A. J (2000). Geophysical and related 
techniques applied to Archaeological survey in the 
Mediterranean: A review. J. Mediterr. Archaeol. 2000, 
13, 3–75.

Kappers, M., Scott M. Fitz P., and Quetta, K. (2007). 
Automated Data Collection and 3D Modelling of  
Archaeological Sites: Examining the Prehistory and 
Destruction of  Grand Bay in Carriacou. Edited by 
Basil A. Reid, pp. 81-90

Kaye, Q. (2003). A field survey of  the island of  Carriacou, 
West indies, March 2003. Papers from the Institute of  
Archaeology, 14, 129-135.

Kappers, M. (2007). Ongoing Archaeological 
Investigations on Carriacou, West Indies: 2nd July to 
3rd August, 2007. Papers from the Institute of  Archaeology, 
18, 167-176. 

Kottak P. C (2000). Anthropology, The exploration of  
Human diversity (9th edition) University of  Michigan.

Kvamme, K. L. (2003). Geophysical surveys as landscape 
archaeology. Am. Antiq.

Lasaponara, R., Masini, N. (2012). Satellite Remote 
Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology; Springer 

Science & Business Media: Cham, The Netherlands
López, C., & Bernabé, M. (2012). Fundamentos de las 

Infraestructuras de Datos Espaciales. Madrid, España.
Montufo, A. M (1997). The use of  satellite imagery and 

digital image processing in landscape archaeology: A 
case study from the island of  Mallorca, Spain. 

Neubauer,W. (2001). Images of  the invisible- prospection 
methods for the documentation of  threatened 
archaeological sites. Naturwissenschaften 2001, 88, 13–
24.

Renfrew, C & Bahn, P. (2008). Archaeology: Theories, 
Methods and Practice. (5th Edition). London, 
Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Scianna, A., & Villa, B. (2011). GIS Applications in 
Archaeology. Italian National Research Council, Italy. 

Sutton, M. O. (2006). Archaeology; The Science of  
Human past. Pearson Educational Inc, USA. www.
en-ng.topographic-map.com/maps/ghvl/Ikara/
retrieved on 4th February, 2020 (01:33pm)

Theocaris, P. S., Liritzis, I., Lagios, E., & Sampson, A. 
(1996). Geophysical prospection, archaeological 
excavation, and dating in two Hellenic pyramids. 
Surveys in Geophysics, 17, 593-618.

UNESCO (2018). List of  Endangered sites. www.
africanworldheritagesites.com Retrieved on 14th 
June, 2021 (01:33pm)

Wynn, J. (1990). Applications of  High-resolution 
Geophysical methods to Archaeology. In 
Archaeological Geology of  North America 
Centennial Special Volume; Lasca, N.P., Donahue, J., 
Eds.; Geological Society of  America: Boulder, CO, 
USA, 1990; pp. 603- 617.


