805388

research-article2018
SCAXXX10.1177/1206331218805388Space and CulturePierce and Matisziw

Article
Space and Culture
1­–24
Prehistoric Panopticon: © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Settlement Visibility at Ancient sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1206331218805388
https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331218805388
Cahokia Mounds journals.sagepub.com/home/sac

Daniel E. Pierce1 and Timothy C. Matisziw1

Abstract
Throughout time, cultures have manipulated the landscape for a variety of reasons, including the
promotion of social control. One approach to facilitating this control is through omnipresent
surveillance, known as a Panopticon design. Though the Panopticon is more commonly
associated with structural design in industrial societies, the large earthen mounds constructed by
prehistoric civilizations could have also played a role in maintaining social order. To explore the
applicability of the Panopticon concept in a prehistoric context, visibility of the largest manmade
earthen mound in the New World, Monks Mound, was modeled in a geographic information
system. Results indicate that the terraces on the mound and the powerful individuals residing
there would have been visible to most of the population, even when accounting for subsequent
landscape modifications. This level of visibility would have projected an omnipresent threat of
surveillance, possibly facilitating social order and cohesion among such a large population.

Keywords
settlement design, social stratification, viewshed, surveillance, mound builders

Introduction
Central to the analysis of prehistoric populations is understanding the geophysical and social
environments within which they lived (Bender, 1993; McGlade, 1995; Witcher, 1999). To this
end, geospatial analyses have proven quite useful in reasoning about the location of past activi-
ties (Wescott & Brandon, 2000), understanding trade (Contreras, 2011; Hazell & Brodie, 2012),
settlement patterns (Gorenflo & Gale, 2000; Stancic & Veljanovski, 2000), and migration studies
(Llobera, 2000; Murrieta-Flores, 2010), among other topics of archaeological interest
(Haciguzeller, 2012; Scianna & Villa, 2011). There have been attempts to understand the rela-
tionship between physical space and power (Bernardini, Barnash, Kumler, & Wong, 2013;
Drageset, 2017; Foucault, 1986; Johnson, 2012; Van Dyke, 2007; Williams, 2017; Ylimaunu,
Lakomaki, et al., 2014; Zedeno, 2008), but accounting for complex power dynamics through
geospatial analyses can be more challenging (Connolly & Lake, 2006; Wheatley & Gillings,
2000). This is especially true when working with prehistoric sites for which records of prior
landscape conditions may be limited and the extent to which the landscape has changed over time
is unknown (Forte, 2000; Robinson & Zubrow, 1999; Stafford, 1995).

1University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:
Daniel E. Pierce, University of Missouri Research Reactor, University of Missouri–Columbia, 1513 Research Park
Drive, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Email: pierced@missouri.edu
2 Space and Culture 00(0)

Figure 1.  Location of Cahokia Mounds Settlement.

The great Mississippian settlement of Cahokia, located along the Mississippi River in the
central United States (Figure 1), is one such case where social power may have contributed to the
design, purpose, and spatial organization of an ancient settlement (Emerson, Alt, & Pauketat,
2008; Kelly & Brown, 2014; Pauketat, Emerson, Farkas, & Baires, 2015; Romain, 2015).
Unrivaled in its size and influence, Cahokia is considered the largest and most complex pre-
Columbian settlement north of Mesoamerica. Ruling such a large population with minimal forc-
ible coercion would have required complex social negotiations, some of which may have occurred
through a social landscape.
In the past, populations often considered power structures and social hierarchies in the design
of their settlements and built structures (Moore, 1992; Murakami, 2014). This “geography of
power” can reinforce social inequality and even maximize the power of elites through surveil-
lance of the lower classes (Randle, 2011). In this form of social control, known as the Panopticon
design (Semple, 1993), landscapes are manipulated to enhance the visibility of certain spaces,
Pierce and Matisziw 3

Figure 2.  Aerial imagery of Cahokia: (A) 1940 and (B) 2005.
Source. Illinois State Geological Survey (2015).

while reducing the visibility of the observer (Bentham, 1995; Epperson, 2000; Foucault, 1995).
This design acts to generate an internalized gaze that promotes self-regulation and conformity to
social expectations based on the perpetual threat of surveillance (Leone, 1995).
Today, the protected portions of the ancient settlement of Cahokia span approximately 9 km2.
At its peak (ca. AD 1050 to AD 1300), however, Cahokia is thought to have encompassed as
much as 16 km2 (Pauketat, 2004), constituting the largest city in the continental United States
(Iseminger, 2010). The central feature at this site, known as Monks Mound (Figure 2), is the larg-
est earthen mound in North America and represents extraordinary levels of social complexity
through the organization of such a massive community earth-moving project (Knight, 2006).
Given the size and social significance of Monks Mound, its role in the Cahokia settlement has
been the subject of numerous studies (e.g., McGrimsey & Wiant, 1984; Reed, 2009; Schilling
2010, 2012, 2013). But, as is the case with many prehistoric sites, the extent to which the
Cahokian landscape has been altered since its occupation is unknown. Even in the last 75 years,
human activity has had a noticeable impact on the site. For example, in 1940 (Figure 2A), prior
to systematic excavation and preservation efforts, Cahokia featured a mostly agricultural land-
scape while the slopes of Monks Mound were largely forested. By 2005 (Figure 2B), residential
development had encroached the periphery of the site, and though Monks Mound was largely
devoid of woody vegetation, other areas had reforested.
Monks Mound is flat topped with two well-defined flat terraces (Figures 3 and 4) and was
once surrounded by an expansive wooden Central Palisade. The base of the mound sits 417 feet
(127.1 m) above sea level with the lower and upper terraces having current mean elevations of
458.4 feet (139.7 m) and 515.8 feet (157.2 m), respectively. Some reconstructions suggest that up
to four terraces and a small conical mound may have originally been present on the mound sur-
face (Fowler, 1997; Reed, 2009; Reed, Bennett, & Porter, 1968; Skele, 1988). One of the most
significant and substantial archaeological features of the New World, Monks Mound remains a
testament to the authoritative power of the Cahokian elite in their ability to organize labor
(Knight, 2006). To those living in its shadow, it would have been a constant reminder of the
sociopolitical and cosmological power of the local elites (Earle, 2001; Emerson, 1997; Renfrew,
4 Space and Culture 00(0)

Figure 3.  Digital terrain model of Cahokia settlement area.

1973; Trigger, 1990). As such, the mound itself could have been a catalyst for the legitimization
of authority and maintenance of social structure at Cahokia (Amborn, 2006).
To explore the extent to which the built Cahokian landscape may have been utilized to facili-
tate social control/compliance, we have considered a Panopticon perspective. In a Panopticon
design, surveillance and the relative level of visibility of features and activities are used for facili-
tating adherence to a structured and well-behaved society (Leone, 1995; Randle, 2011). As
Monks Mound likely functioned as the power center for Cahokia’s elite (Dalan, Holley, Woods,
Watters, & Koepke, 2003; Pauketat & Koldenhoff, 2002; Schilling, 2010, 2012), we have mod-
elled the visibility from the moundtop to better understand the geographic extent of potential
surveillance of the general population at Cahokia. Using a geographic information system (GIS),
we quantified visibility capabilities based on archaeological and modern topographical data.
Given that landscapes, both social and physical, are fluid and ever-changing (Ingold, 2013), a
viewshed analysis such as this can only consider temporal snapshots. Therefore, multiple sensi-
tivity analyses were then conducted to examine how changes in the underlying visibility model-
ing assumptions may impact our understanding of the pervasiveness of surveillance at Cahokia.

Background
In the design of a controlled environment, surveillance is often a key consideration (Andrzejewski,
2008). In realization of this fact, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham conceptualized a design
form known as the Panopticon for effective prison surveillance. According to Bentham, the
Panopticon design is “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto
without example” and “a mill for grinding rogues honest” (Semple, 1993, p. 152). This model
can be applied to the design of any space that requires authoritarian surveillance and/or supervi-
sion, including but not limited to prisons, schools, hospitals, and asylums (Bentham, 1995;
Pierce and Matisziw 5

Figure 4.  Monks Mound digital elevation model.

Evans, 1982). When incorporating surveillance concerns into the design of a facility, certain ele-
ments can convey the sense of continuous observation despite the improbability that the entire
population could be simultaneously monitored (Semple, 1993). A Panopticon maximizes these
observation capabilities, while restricting an individual’s knowledge of when they are being sur-
veilled by concealing the centralized observer (Epperson, 2000). Thus, control can be exerted
anonymously and automatically without perpetual surveillance since it is merely the threat of
surveillance that coerces people to conform their behavior to acceptable standards (Foucault,
1995). This is exemplified by the ever-present surveillance cameras in use in cities and busi-
nesses worldwide today, as potential wrongdoers act in an acceptable way when they know that
they may be under surveillance. As articulated by Foucault (1995),

He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints
of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation
in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection. (pp.
202-203)

Though Bentham envisioned the Panopticon as a specific architectural design, conceptually it

has broader applications. Foucault (1995) notes that the Panopticon has theoretical value far
beyond the structural plans of institutional facilities. Rather, it can be even more useful as a gen-
eral social theory. At its core, it can be thought of as a means to an inequitable power dynamic
stripped to its most economical form (Bentham, 1995). Its application reduces the number of
6 Space and Culture 00(0)

individuals needed for the exercise of power, while maximizing the number who can be under
control. By utilizing the threat of ever-present surveillance and capitalizing on the associated
internalized gaze, the extrasomatic pressure of behavioral conformity is transferred to the com-
munity itself through self-regulation (Andrejevic 2005; Ylimaunu, Symonds, et al., 2014).
Some studies have explored the behavioral effect of surveillance in modern non-Western soci-
eties (e.g., Agrawal, 2005; Ewart, 2008; Gupta, 1998; Kaplan, 1995; Ong, 1987; Rofel, 1992,
etc.). But more commonly, researchers assume that the aversion to surveillance is a modern phe-
nomenon stemming from our own Western conceptions of privacy and space (Triantafillou &
Nielson, 2001). This Eurocentric assumption has resulted in a general dearth of Panopticon
scholarship beyond historical and/or modern Europe (Lansing, 2003). Also contributing to the
lack of theoretical application, some researchers have argued that class-consciousness in and of
itself is a product of the Middle Ages (Fox, 1985; Hill, 1972; Hilton, 1973; Johnson, 1996).
Furthermore, the Panopticon system of social control is thought to have only been actively
engaged in following the European Enlightenment (Bentham, 1995; Foucault, 1995; Julius,
2012). Nonetheless, humans have, in fact, been well aware of the effectiveness of omnipresent
surveillance for the purposes of controlling behavior for thousands of years, long before its inten-
tional application through planned architecture. As such, though the Panopticon as an architec-
tural device was not characterized until Bentham’s inception, the unintentional effects of a
Panopticon system can be seen long before.
The Old Testament, for example, specifically utilizes the threat of ever-present surveillance to
incentivize normative behavior. Referring to God’s omnipresent watchfulness, Hebrews 4:13
states, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and
opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” In other words, if one cannot escape
being watched by God, they must self-regulate their behavior to avoid his punishment. The use-
fulness of ancient surveillance for behavioral control goes far beyond rhetoric, however. As
described by the ancient Roman author and statesman Pliny the Younger (Pliny, 1936, Ep.
2.17.12-13) and alluded to in other ancient sources (e.g., Seneca, 1917-1925, Ep. 51.11), elevated
towers in the ancient Roman World did not simply serve as defensive structures. Rather, towers
were often used for surveillance and to provide a fortress like impression to reinforce class hier-
archy (Rowlandson, 1996; Williams, 2017). Similarly, third-century AD African Red Slip
fineware pottery depicts images of “treehouses” in which individuals could observe the courtyard
to ensure that those involved in the harvest are working diligently (Tortorella, 2005). Similar
watchtowers are noted for ancient Greece (Morris & Papadopolous, 2005) and throughout the
Mediterranean world (Ault, 1994; Carter, Crawford, Lehman, Nikolaenko, & Trelogan, 2000;
Ober, 1985; Osborne, 1987; Pettegrew, 2001; Williams, 2017). To be sure, the value of these tow-
ers for the purposes of behavioral modification is not simply an etic projection of modern con-
ceptions of surveillance and privacy onto past peoples. The value of omnipresent anonymous
surveillance in the form of a Panopticon is clearly demonstrated in a third-century sermon by an
individual known only as Pseudo-Cyprian (Burini, 1994). In this sermon, the author describes
lookout posts constructed within vineyards in which a slave boy would be positioned. The boy
would be completely concealed within the structure but would have accessible lookout holes in
all directions. He would also be instructed to vocalize loudly from within. Any potential intruder
to the vineyard would then see the lookout station and hear the vocalizations, but not see the
concealed observer. The uncertainty of who is watching and if he is even within visibility, would
inhibit any desire to steal even a single grape for fear of being caught (Burini, 1994).
There are also many more recent ethnographic examples in which omnipresent surveillance is
known to promote social order and cultural conformity within particular communities beyond the
Western World. For example, the Selk’nam of southern South America heavily relied on surveil-
lance for many generations, even crediting this spy-like behavior for their own cultural continuity.
Prior to colonization, they maintained their culture and social order through strict pervasive
Pierce and Matisziw 7

community surveillance. After colonization, however, this surveillance subsided resulting in more
personal privacy, but also what the elders claimed to be “serious damage to the moral conditions”
and loss of tradition in the community (Gusinde, 1931). In another example, the Western Apache
of the American Southwest believe that the mountains and arroyos are symbolic ancestors that are
charged with watching over the people to ensure maintenance of traditional culture. As “living
right” necessitates constant attention (Basso, 1990), the belief in perpetual oversight secures an
internalization of cultural norms serving to maintain Apache ways of life. Thus, for fear of discov-
ery by the ancestors and community, socially delinquent individuals are forced into self-reflection
to remedy their behavior to appropriate cultural standards. Yet this ever-present surveillance is
valued even by those under its endless gaze, as the land (and the ancestors by proxy) is seen as
looking after the people through the preservation of Apache traditions (Basso, 1990). As demon-
strated in the above examples, the social theory of panopticism can certainly be applied to non-
Western society (Dove, 2010). Though the precise modalities of Bentham’s Panopticon model
(and Foucault’s subsequent social theory) may be grounded in modern Western worldview, the
effectiveness of self-surveillance based on a panoptic gaze is both aspatial and atemporal.
Considering the wealth of cultural diversity throughout time and space, the applicability of the
Panopticon as a conceptual framework and social theory extends far beyond the historic and
modern Western World (Ewart, 2008; Ylimaunu, Symonds, et al., 2014). As such, it is particu-
larly apropos for us to consider this theoretical model for past societies empirically. At the
Mississippian settlement of Cahokia, a considerable amount of information concerning land-
scape features such as mounds, structures, palisades, and the characteristics of surrounding ter-
rain has been accumulated from which an approximation of landscape visibility in the past can
be generated through a GIS. Using Monks Mound as the central focus, this information now
allows for an assessment of how well the configuration of the settlement conforms to a Panopticon
model through quantifiable visibility analyses.

Cahokia Mounds
Located approximately 13 km east of St. Louis, Missouri, the permanent settlement of Cahokia
began during the Late Woodland Period (AD 500-1000), nearly 1,000 years before European
contact (Collins, 1990). Cahokia eventually flourished to become the largest and most influential
civic center in North America with between 10,000 and 20,000 inhabitants at its peak (Benson,
Pauketat, & Cook, 2009; Emerson, 1997; Young & Fowler, 2000). This enormous population was
comparable in size to both contemporaneous London and Paris and dwarfed all communities
north of Mexico. As such, the power and influence of this large settlement was extraordinary and
would have extended far beyond the site boundaries (Fowler, 1974; Kelly, 1997; Kopper, 1986;
Milner, 1998; Yerkes, 2005). As no firsthand accounts from that period exist, current knowledge
of Cahokia is reliant on archaeology. Fortunately, the large population generated an extensive
material record and hundreds of features for archaeologists to examine. At one time, at least 120
man-made earthen mounds were likely present at Cahokia (Pauketat et al., 2015), with construc-
tion commencing prior to the 9th century (Emerson & Barry, 1991). While some mounds rise less
than a meter from the surrounding terrain and are virtually indistinguishable from the natural
landscape, others are much larger.
Cahokian mounds are separated into three main classes based on form: conical, platform, and
ridge top (Fowler, 1997), with platform mounds forming the earthen foundation for wooden
structures (Benchley, 1975; Schilling, 2010). Measuring 291 m × 236 m, the largest platform
mound, known as Monks Mound, features a base larger than the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacán
and roughly equivalent to that of Khufu’s Great Pyramid in Giza (Schilling, 2012; Skele, 1988).
Various models have been proposed regarding its construction sequence (Pauketat, 1997, 2000;
Pauketat & Alt, 2003; Reed et al., 1968). But perhaps most compelling is Timothy Schilling’s
8 Space and Culture 00(0)

(2010) hypothesis, which is supported by various forms of stratigraphic and chronometric evi-
dence for a construction history within a single generation occurring at approximately AD1150.
According to Schilling (2010), the majority of construction would have occurred at this time,
with the final “capping” of the mound occurring at approximately AD1200. Construction of
Monks Mound would have required considerable labor organization for the movement of at least
730,000 m3 of soil (Dalan et al., 2003; Schilling, 2010, 2012, 2013). Particularly if the mound
was designed premeditatedly, it would have also required great knowledge, planning, and acute
attention to the symbolic and ritual implications of such an undertaking (Schilling, 2010;
Sherwood & Kidder, 2011). Today, the mound stands approximately 30 m high, with two well-
defined terraces (Figure 4), though the morphology of the mound has changed over time due to
erosional “slumping,” (Collins & Chalfant, 1993; Dalan et al., 2003). Preservation efforts to
remedy the effects of this erosion have been attempted since the time of original construction, so
it is unclear to what extent the mound has been affected. Nonetheless, mound height in the past
would have been similar to modern times if not greater. As such, visibility would only have been
enhanced in the past. Therefore, modern topographic measurements should serve as a conserva-
tive estimate of past landscape conditions.
Monks Mound was the epicenter of the Cahokian world and the seat of sociopolitical authority
(Schilling, 2010). Upon the uppermost terrace once stood a large wooden structure, thought to
have been a chiefly residence, a meeting place for the governing body, and/or a site for important
ritual (Dalan et al., 2003; Pauketat & Koldenhoff, 2002; Schilling, 2010, 2012). Due to the ever-
present threat of surveillance noted in the Panopticon model, any presence or structure atop the
mound could have served to maintain social inequalities and promote a cohesive social structure.
Furthermore, even if not intended as an initial design consideration, the social control facilitated
through omnipresent threats of surveillance from this central vantage point could have fortu-
itously manifested as a consequence of construction.
A growing population is typically associated with increased social stratification (Johnson,
1996). These shifts in balance of power often coincide with the increasing enclosure of signifi-
cant places to keep the upper echelon of society nearby while limiting access to what once was
considered more communal (Tawny, 1912). Here, the construction of the Central Palisade (see
Figure 2) is believed to have begun around AD1135 (Krus, 2011) or as late as the early 13th
century (Schilling, 2010). Though palisades have inarguable defensive functions (Alt, Krutchen,
& Pauletat, 2010), secondary social purposes often exist as well, such as serving as a social bar-
rier enclosing the high-status district of Cahokia. Given their apparent significance, Monks
Mound, the Central Plaza, and the Palisade were likely directly tied to the worldview and socio-
political structure of the settlement (Alt et al., 2010; Dalan et al., 2003; Schilling, 2012, 2013)
and were thus an integral part of a greater socio-landscape. Though resistance to the enclosure of
public spaces has been common historically (Johnson, 1996; Manning, 1988; Sharp, 1980), it
does not seem to be the case at Cahokia. Perhaps another factor facilitated the acquiescence of
increased social stratification and physical segregation of the Cahokia populace.

Visibility Analysis
Monumental architecture has been a common subject of visibility analyses throughout the world.
In their most effective form, these structures are visually prominent in multiple ways (Bernardini
et al., 2013; Llobera, 2003; Podobnikar, 2012), Often these features have been used for signaling
(Hayes & Windes, 1975; Kantner & Hobgood, 2003; Wheatley, 1995), landmark identification
(Eva & Crema, 2014; Gillings, 2009), and for cosmological significance (Marshall, Stein, Loose,
& Novotny, 1979; Sofaer, 2007). In some cases, these features are also viewed as symbols of
power and authority for the purposes of influencing local sociopolitical dynamics (Bernardini
et al., 2013; Bernardini & Peeples, 2015; Bongers, Arkush, & Harrower, 2012; Doyle, Garrison,
Pierce and Matisziw 9

& Houston, 2012; Fewkes, 1917; Van Dyke, 2007; Vivian & Mathews, 1965). In this regard, GIS
viewshed analyses have recently been utilized to argue for the importance of intervisibility in the
prehistoric American Southwest (Kantner & Hobgood, 2016). Here, researchers have utilized
geospatial analyses to argue that tower kivas rose high above the landscape to not only serve as
vantage points overlooking the local community but to also maximize monumentality and visi-
bility of the structure from community members. These structures thus served as potent symbols
of sociopolitical power, structure, and community. In our current study, we have utilized similar
visibility analyses to address monumental architecture as a functional component of the socio-
politics of ancient Cahokia.
Since the early 1990s, archaeologists have made use of computer technologies, such as GIS,
to calculate line of sight between locations (Boaz & Uleberg, 2000; Kantner & Hobgood, 2016;
Petrie, Johnson, Cullen, & Kvamme, 1995; Swanson, 2003; Wright, MacEachern, & Lee, 2014),
accounting for variations in the terrain and curvature of the Earth as well as other features that
may affect visibility (Fabrizio & Garnero, 2013; Ruggles, Medyckyj-Scott, & Gruffydd, 1993;
Whitley, 2008). Given the potential of 360 degrees of vision by an observer, these visibility
analyses are ideal for evaluating a Panopticon design (Kay & Sly, 2001). One measure of site
visibility, termed a viewshed, identifies the portions of a landscape that are visible from a single
point or a particular set of locations. Viewsheds can be rendered to represent all areas that are
visible from the perspective of an individual or can be adjusted to account for the relative ability
to differentiate features within different distance ranges (Fabrizio & Garnero, 2013; Higuchi,
1983; Ogburn, 2006; Marsh & Schreiber, 2015; Randle, 2011; Wheatley, 1995). For an assess-
ment of a Panopticon design, however, the mere threat of surveillance is what drives behavior.
For this reason, the gradual diminution of quality of sight based on distance between observer
and the observed can be considered less consequential in one’s ability to feel surveilled.
Nonetheless, at a distance, visual acuity will inevitably be diminished to the point that even the
perception of potential surveillance will be gone.
There are numerous limitations to visibility analyses of prehistoric landscapes, such as uncer-
tainties about past topography and land use/cover conditions at that point in time (Bell, 2012;
Connolly & Lake, 2006; Gillings & Wheatley, 2001; Robinson & Zubrow, 1999). While a con-
siderable amount of terrain information may exist for an area, hundreds and perhaps thousands
of years may have passed between the collection of these data and the period of interest. Some
landscape changes can occur even over much shorter periods (see Figure 2). Thus, one needs to
be cautious when using modern data to infer prehistoric landscape conditions. Nonetheless, rep-
resentations of the Earth’s surface such as DEMs (digital elevation models) and DTMs (digital
terrain models) based on modern data can be effectively used in conjunction with derived knowl-
edge of the locale to approximate generalized surface characteristics of the past.
Not only can the analysis of visibility be affected by the assumed landscape conditions present
at the time, but visibility also depends on the locational characteristics of the observers and those
being observed relative to the landscape. That is, visibility also depends on the height above the
surface at which an observer is viewing as well as the height above the surface of features being
viewed. Although the actual viewing height of observers (or features observed) in such prehis-
toric contexts is undocumented, a range of different viewing heights can be evaluated in order to
better understand the sensitivity of the visibility results to changes in topography relative to the
individuals as well as the specific viewing characteristics of the observers/observed.

Data and Method

In this study, ESRI ArcGIS 10.3, a commercial GIS, was used to model visibility of the top of
Monks Mound from the surrounding landscape. A LiDAR-derived DTM (Illinois Height
Modernization Program, 2016) with a spatial resolution of 0.61 m × 0.61 m (2 ft × 2 ft) served
10 Space and Culture 00(0)

to approximate the surface elevation (including the height of all mounds). While vegetation and
modern buildings were removed from the DTM, other aspects of the modern landscape (i.e.,
built-up road beds and drainage ditches) are unavoidable. These modern features, however,
appear inconsequential in subsequent analyses due to their rarity. Chisholm (1970) suggests that
3 to 4 km of travel between a settlement and supporting agricultural lands is likely the maximum
distance that could be incurred without ultimately giving rise to satellite settlements. This dis-
tance range is similar to what is known about the geographic extent of the main portion of
Cahokia (Pauketat, 2004). Yet visual acuity should be taken into account for viewshed accuracy
(Fabrizio & Garnero, 2013) and analytical extent. Scholars have estimated 6.2 km as the maxi-
mum distance at which humans can distinguish objects under optimal conditions (Higuchi, 1983;
Friedman, 2008; Wheatley & Gillings, 2000). But the discrimination of objects is affected by its
size among other factors. Though discriminatory capacity is variable among individuals, the
human eye can generally resolve an object of 0.02 angular degrees or greater (Yanoff & Duker,
2014). Key to this study is the ability to see an individual atop Monks Mound, not simply seeing
the mound itself. Therefore, conservatively using a width of 1 m for the human form, this
0.02-degree threshold is met at a distance of 2.8 km. Beyond this distance, one could no longer
recognize an object (or individual) of only one meter in width. Though visual acuity would be
incredibly low beyond 2.8 km, it is only the threat of surveillance that is needed in the hypotheti-
cal application of a Panopticon design, not necessarily true functional visibility. Because the
settlement extends beyond the effectively visible 2.8-km threshold (Pauketat, 2004), we have
opted to analyze a full radius of 4 km from Monks Mound in all directions to account for the
possible perception of visibility at greater distances by the surveilled.
Previous studies have indicated that wooden structures were likely positioned atop platform
mounds (Fowler, 1997). Therefore, the barriers created by these structures should be accounted
for to accurately model visibility. To these ends, analog site maps (Fowler, 1997) were georefer-
enced and aligned to the DTM. Each mound was then digitized as a polygon and attributed
according to its mound type using the GIS (see Figure 3). A 10 m × 10 m area atop each platform
mound and a larger rectangular area on the upper terrace of Monks Mound were then digitized to
represent probable locations of wooden structures. Based on reconstructions and archaeological
evidence (Bennett, 1944), the DTM elevations associated with these areas were then artificially
increased by 10 feet (3.05 m) to reflect structure height. Referring to published height estimates
(Iseminger, 2010), the wooden Palisade was then considered by adding 12 feet (3.66 m) in height
to its narrow footprint.
While relative visibility can be modeled for every location (i.e., cell) upon the surface of a
feature (e.g., Eve & Crema, 2014), we selected two points along the front margins of each of
Monks Mound’s two terraces to represent the most plausible candidate observer points from
which surveillance could be undertaken. After selecting these four observer points (see Figure
4), visibility was computed. If an individual at ground level could see these locations, the feel-
ing of anonymous surveillance could have been conveyed, per a Panopticon hypothesis. For
each of these surveillance points, height was assumed to be 3.3 ft (1 m) or approximately waist
level. The viewing height of those on the ground was assumed to be 5.5 ft (1.68 m), or approxi-
mately eye level. The output of the visibility analyses indicates which of the surveillance loca-
tions, if any, would have been visible to an individual at each raster cell. The results were then
summarized for 10 radiating geographic subdivisions of the study region to assess the propor-
tionate visibility of Monks Mound from different portions of the settlement (Figure 5). These
analysis zones were created for 402 m (quarter mile) increments for the purposes of measuring
the extent of visibility for different distance ranges. The outer distance band represents all por-
tions of the settlement that are within approximately 4 km of the site’s center at Monks Mound.
Finally, visibility of the moundtop from all areas of the central plaza within the Palisade was
summarized.
Pierce and Matisziw 11

Figure 5.  Visibility assessment zones.

Table 1.  Scenarios of Terrace and Landscape Viewing Height Profiles Evaluated.

Analysis profile Terrace point height Surface viewer height Description

1 3.3 ft (1 m) 5.5 ft (1.68 m) Initial viewing heights
2 3.3 ft (1 m) 2 ft (0.61 m) Decreased surface
3 1.65 ft (0.46 m) 2 ft (0.61 m) Decreased terrace,
decreased surface
4 6 ft (1.83 m) 2 ft (0.61 m) Increased terrace,
decreased surface
5 1.65 ft (0.46 m) 5.5ft (1.68 m) Decreased terrace
6 6 ft (1.83 m) 5.5 ft (1.68 m) Increased terrace

Following the initial analysis, offset heights of the observer and the observed were then varied
to evaluate the sensitivity of the results to potential diachronic changes in the site’s topography
(Table 1). This process effectively changes the line of sight capabilities by altering the elevation
of one cell while keeping all other cells at their current elevation. This is an ideal approach as it
is unlikely that temporal changes to the local topography have been uniform across the site.
While this does not necessarily represent real historic alterations to the landscape, an approach
such as this does provide some indication as to how an incremental increase/decrease in elevation
at a particular location would manifest in patterns of visibility.

Results
For the study region as a whole, both upper terrace points are visible to a large proportion of the
southern half of the region (Figure 6). Mounds and structures do little to inhibit visibility, indicat-
ing that the majority of the settlement could be viewed from elites atop this terrace. Overall vis-
ibility of the upper terrace is summarized by analysis zones of variable distance in Figure 7. Both
observation points are jointly visible to 43.4% of the area within the Palisade, but at least one
12 Space and Culture 00(0)

Figure 6.  Visibility of upper terrace.

Figure 7.  Upper terrace visibility (by proportion of analysis zones).

point is visible to the majority of that area (75.8%). If a larger region is considered, visibility
increases. In total, at least one surveillance point is visible to approximately 83.4% of all the land
within 4 km of Monks Mound (Figure 7). Generally, there is a positive correlation between dis-
tance from the mound and overall visibility. But beyond 2 km from Monks Mound, relative vis-
ibility is so ubiquitous that there is little difference between analytical zones. Notable exceptions
to the widespread visibility include the area to the north of the mound and a narrow area imme-
diately outside the Palisade. This lack of visibility is a primarily a simple product of our selective
placement of observation points on the southern margin of the terrace. Regardless, the occluded
region to the north is largely swampland with a propensity for inundation which would have
rendered it less suitable for human settlement. This is borne out in the archaeological record as
Pierce and Matisziw 13

Figure 8.  Visibility of lower terrace.

Figure 9.  Lower terrace visibility (by proportion of analysis zones).

few features have been identified in this area. Therefore, it is unlikely that much activity or habi-
tation took place north of Monks Mound, where visibility is lowest. Most other locations lacking
visibility are occluded by smaller stream banks and modern road beds, features that may not have
been present in the past. Overall, the high level of regional visibility suggests that an ever-present
threat of surveillance for the vast majority of the population could have been present.
Visibility of the lower terrace is illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. Much of the southern half of the
region is still visible from both points on this terrace. Here, most nonvisible areas in the southern
half are again due to the presence of more modern built up features. Given the lower elevation of
14 Space and Culture 00(0)

Figure 10.  Difference in visibility of upper and lower terraces.

this terrace, the presence of the Palisade and smaller mounds also effect the diminution of visibil-
ity to a greater degree. Approximately 41.3% of the area within the Palisade has an unobstructed
view of both observation points while the western and eastern points are uniquely visible to just
4.4% and 6.8% of the area, respectively. For areas within 804 m of the mound, there is an increase
in the proportionate area that has no visibility to either terrace point. In this zone, the area just
beyond the Palisade makes up a larger proportion of the total area, resulting in lower overall vis-
ibility. But regardless of the zone evaluated, more than 40% of the land within the area has visi-
bility of at least one lower terrace point. Beyond this, visibility generally increases.
Unsurprisingly, visibility of the lower terrace is less than that of the upper terrace. This can
largely be attributed to the fact that much of the area to the north is obstructed by Monks
Mound itself and the hypothesized structure on top (Figure 10). While the upper and lower
terraces both maintain good visibility from the southern portion of the settlement, the upper
terrace provides for greater regional visibility to the northwest. Furthermore, though the lower
terrace may have been visible from much of the surrounding landscape, the upper terrace
would have provided additional visibility; a beneficial attribute of the mound as the settlement
expanded over time. The correlation between overall visibility and distance from Monks
Mound is also as expected. Only elites would have lived within the Central Palisade although
the plaza would have been a communal gathering area (Emerson, 1997; Schilling, 2010).
While visibility is lower within the Palisade, there was near universal visibility of the areas
beyond it, where those of lower social status would have resided. As such, our results confirm
that individuals with more social power (those closer to and/or within the Palisade area) would
have been subject to less constant surveillance. By contrast, those of lower status who resided
further from the site’s center (Schilling, 2010), would have consistently been within the view-
shed of authority figures atop Monks Mound. Not only could this threat of constant surveil-
lance promote “proper” behavior but also cultural cohesion. If an individual is the subject of
surveillance, they may feel that they are a valuable actor in the society at large to be worthy of
such attention. Like is seen with the Western Apache ancestor landscape (Basso, 1990), those
being watched can also feel confident that they are protected from threats as well, as the pow-
erful are keeping a watchful eye upon them (Rowe, 1966).
Pierce and Matisziw 15

Table 2.  Results for Alternative Analysis Profiles for 4 km Viewshed of Monks Mound.

Lower terrace visibility (%)

Profile 1 2 3 4 5 6
Neither point visible 57.57 67.27 69.62 59.89 59.99 48.16
West point visible 2.67 2.31 2.34 5.52 2.78 7.90
East point visible 12.42 10.06 10.27 10.02 12.83 11.91
Both points visible 27.32 20.35 17.75 24.55 24.38 32.01%

  Upper terrace visibility (%)

Neither point visible 16.60 25.83 27.76 21.47 18.52 12.37
West point visible 24.83 21.65 23.71 9.11 27.25 9.55
East point visible 8.99 8.76 17.94 6.46 18.87 6.57
Both points visible 49.57 43.75 30.58 62.94 35.35 71.49

Analysis of prehistoric landscapes involves having to make assumptions regarding the differ-
ences between the modern and past landscape. Although the local topography has evolved
through mound “slumping,” deposition and erosion cycles, and man-made disturbances, the
resulting effect on the modern topography remains unclear (Dalan et al., 2003; Schilling, 2013).
To evaluate the extent to which minor changes in the landscape may affect visibility results, a
series of sensitivity analyses were conducted. This was accomplished by altering the viewing
heights of individuals on the mound’s terrace as well as those throughout the surrounding land-
scape (Table 1). These six analytical scenarios were constructed to understand how diachronic
changes of roughly 1.3 m in terrace height and a variation of roughly 1 m in surface height could
impact prospects for visibility. While these variations in viewing height are rather small, they
help gauge sensitivity of visibility results to minor changes in analytical parameters. Should sig-
nificant discrepancies arise given these alterations, then it would become apparent that subse-
quent land modifications have made attempts to express prehistoric visibility a futile endeavor.
However, though these analyses produced slightly different levels of overall visibility, a similar
ordinal pattern between visibility classes can be observed among the profiles assessed. At mini-
mum, one upper terrace point is visible from at least 72.2% of the landscape regardless of profile
assessed and at least one lower terrace point is visible from a minimum of 30.4% of the area
(Table 2). With the most visible profile (Profile 6), at least one upper terrace point is visible from
87.6% of the region while at least one lower terrace point is visible from 51.8% of the region. The
sensitivity of observer height, though affecting the visibility of the lower terrace to a greater
degree, seems to have made little difference for the visibility of the upper terrace. The consis-
tency in these results, despite altering the viewing height values, leads to the conclusion that if
land modification since the Cahokia florescence has been at most moderate, modern topographic
data should suffice for general approximations of effective visibility.
Finally, the above analysis has considered visibility as it would have been at the time when the
Central Palisade was present, a feature which may have been added after the completion of
Monks Mound (Schilling, 2010). Though visibility of the terraces would have been limited when
standing immediately outside of the Palisade, the results of a comparative analysis indicate that
the Palisade presents little overall obstruction to visibility when the area is considered in its total-
ity (Figure 11). This demonstrates that the potential panoptic surveillance generated by the con-
struction of the mound would not have been affected by the Palisade’s construction. Furthermore,
given that areas proximate to the Palisade that have little visibility of the lower terrace do have
visibility of the upper terrace, any additions to the mound’s height would have only enhanced
16 Space and Culture 00(0)

Figure 11.  Terrace visibility with and without Palisade: (A) upper terrace and (B) lower terrace.

surveillance capacity over time. Thus, in constructing the Palisade, a social and/or defensive bar-
rier could have been created while sacrificing little surveillance capabilities.

Discussion
It has long been accepted that the built landscape features at Cahokia (particularly Monks Mound)
were inextricably linked to the overarching power structure (Baltus & Baires, 2011; Emerson,
1997). The construction of these mounds would have required a strong authoritative class in which
labor forces could be organized on a massive scale (Holt, 2009; Pauketat, 2002). As leadership and
power were likely intertwined between political and religious realms, the mounds themselves
would have been a constant reminder of the authority of the elites (Baltus & Baires, 2011; Pauketat,
2013). Such an individual (or group of people) who could command such a monumental task of
mound building would have been sociopolitically unrivaled (Holt, 2009; Pauketat, 2002). As an
Pierce and Matisziw 17

affirmation of this power, the ruler(s) at Cahokia likely resided and/or conducted political activi-
ties atop the largest of the mounds (Schilling, 2010, 2012, 2013). Thus, cosmologically and socio-
politically, Monks Mound would have been the focal point of the entire society.
Given the widespread visibility modeled in this research, the Cahokian populace would have
been aware of the potential for ever-present surveillance. This constant threat would have sub-
sequently been internalized as individuals conformed to behavioral expectations due to uncer-
tainty of when they are in fact being watched (Foucault, 1995; Leone, 1995). To facilitate this
process, dominant actors can legitimate an unequal social structure through ideology in which
the dialectic social disparities between classes can be masked (Epperson, 2000; Randle, 2011).
At Cahokia, this ideology promoted Monks Mound and the elite power structure as the political
and cosmological center of the Cahokian world and resulted in a system where authority was
granted and subsequently maintained through the exercise of control over goods and labor. With
the likely intertwining of social and cosmological power, the population would have been acqui-
escent to a system in which their daily lives were under surveillance due to ideological expecta-
tions. As such, the 100+ mounds took great authority to build, and then functioned to assist in
the maintenance of that same authority by their very existence. Secondarily, a Panopticon sys-
tem can create a form of communitas in which individuals feel that they are an important com-
ponent of the community and are protected due to being a subject of elite attention, unlike those
beyond the settlement (Rowe, 1966). Thus, for numerous reasons individuals may have been
coerced into maintaining order and conforming to social/behavioral expectation without physi-
cal threat, even if their social stratum was disadvantageous. In this way, the large population at
Cahokia could be efficiently controlled by a comparatively smaller ruling class through inter-
nalized self-regulation.

Conclusion
Phenomenology—inferring how humans interact with their surroundings based on universal
sensory experiences—is perfectly suited for viewshed analyses such as these (Johnson, 2012;
Llobera, 2007; Van Dyke, 2007). Furthermore, using GIS technology allows us to maintain a
quantitative approach void of preconceptions (Fleming, 2006). The Panopticon design has been
explored in the field of archaeology on rare occasions (i.e., Carlson & Jordan, 2013; Leone,
1995; Randle, 2011), yet few studies have applied this approach to prehistory (see, Graves &
Van Keuren, 2011, for exception). We are further unaware of any study in which a Panopticon
approach has been examined through quantitative analysis for a prehistoric settlement. Though
there are limitations to extrapolating modern landscapes into the past, the results of our sensitiv-
ity analyses indicate that our viewshed calculations are sufficiently informative despite the cen-
turies since Cahokia’s occupation. As such, visibility and viewshed studies can be a useful
modeling device for exploring social control through a Panopticon design in this context.
Similar to the approach taken by Kantner and Hobgood (2016) in their analysis of Southwestern
tower kivas, here we have emphasized intervisibility to address the social dynamics at one of the
most well-known prehistoric sites in North America through spatial analyses. How could so
much power be rested in a single individual or small group at a place such as Cahokia where
scant evidence of forceful coercion has been found? How could behavioral/social expectations be
maintained in such a highly populated settlement of this magnitude? Although forcible coercion
can be difficult to identify archaeologically and cannot be discounted completely, the lack of
evidence makes it equally difficult to substantiate. In the past, various hypotheses have been
presented to explain ways in which social order and community standards can be maintained
with a growing population size (Alberti, 2014). It is quite possible that Cahokia elite ruled
through nonviolent coercive tactics of ritual and ceremony coupled with social power (Holt,
2009). Here, we present one factor which may have also played a contributing role in maintaining
18 Space and Culture 00(0)

order: surveillance. Perhaps the mounds themselves facilitated this through the psychological
effects of a Panopticon design. Questions such as these are unquestionably challenging to explore
based on traditional archaeological fieldwork alone. However, coupling the archeological evi-
dence with modern data collection methods, current analytical technologies, and interdisciplin-
ary theoretical applications can greatly assist in the exploration of the complexities associated
with the location, function, and atmosphere of prehistoric settlements.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Bill Iseminger of the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site and Mary Beth Trubitt
for the assistance in providing initial maps. We also thank Todd VanPool for helpful comments in editing,
and various anonymous reviewers. The opinions and conclusions are solely the product of the authors and
any mistakes are of no fault to the aforementioned individuals.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This work was partially funded through the MURR National Science Foundation Grant
No. BCS- 1621158.

ORCID iD
Daniel E. Pierce   https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2121-1064

References
Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the making of subjects. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Alberti, G. (2014). Modeling group size and scalar stress by logistic regression from an archaeological
perspective. PLoS One, 9, e91510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091510
Alt, S., Krutchen, J., & Pauketat, T. (2010). The construction and use of Cahokia’s Grand Plaza. Journal of
Field Archaeology, 35, 131-146.
Amborn, H. (2006). The contemporary significance of what has been. Three approaches to remembering the
past: Lineage, Gada, and oral tradition. History in Africa, 33, 53-84.
Andrejevic, M. (2005). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance.
Surveillance and Society, 2, 479-497.
Andrzejewski, A. (2008). Building power: Architecture and surveillance in Victorian America. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press.
Ault, B. (1994). Classical houses and households: An architectural and artifactual case study from Halieis,
Greece (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
Baltus, M., & Baires, S. (2011). Elements of ancient power in the Cahokian world. Journal of Social
Archaeology, 12, 167-192.
Basso, K. (1990). Western Apache language and culture: Essays in linguistic anthropology. Tuscon:
University of Arizona Press.
Bell, S. (2012). Sustainable landscapes. In R. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sustainability science and
technology (pp. 10360-10390). New York, NY: Springer Sciences.
Benchley, E. (1975). Summary of field report of excavations on the Southwest Corner of the first terrace of
Monks Mound. In M. L. Fowler (Ed.), Cahokia archaeology: Field reports (pp. 16-20). Springfield:
Illinois State Museum.
Bender, B. (Ed.). (1993). Landscape, politics, and perspective. Oxford, England: Berg.
Bennett, J. (1944). A note on Middle Mississippian architecture. American Antiquity, 9, 333-334.
Pierce and Matisziw 19

Benson, L., Pauketat, T., & Cook, E. (2009). Cahokia’s boom and bust in the context of climate change.
American Antiquity, 70, 467-483.
Bentham, J. (1995). The Panopticon writings (M. Božovič, Ed.). London, England: Verso.
Bernardini, W., Barnash, A., Kumler, M., & Wong, M. (2013). Quantifying visual prominence in social
landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 3946-3954.
Bernardini, W., & Peeples, M. (2015). Sight communities: The social significance of shared visual land-
scapes. American Antiquity, 80, 215-235.
Boaz, J., & Uleberg, E. (2000). Quantifying the non-quantifiable: Studying hunter-gatherer landscapes. In
G. Lock (Ed.), Beyond the map: Archaeology and spatial technologies (pp. 101-115). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: IOS Press.
Bongers, J., Arkush, E., & Harrower, M. (2012). Landscape of death: GIS-based analyses of chullpas in the
western Lake Titicaca basin. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39, 1687-1693.
Burini, C. (1994). Pseudo Cipriano: I due monti Sinai e Sion [Pseudo Cipriano: The two mountains Sinai
and Sion]. Biblioteca Patristica 25. Florence, Italy: Nardini.
Carlson, D., & Jordan, A. (2013). Visibility and power: Preliminary analysis of social control on a Bandanese
plantation compound, Eastern Indonesia. Asian Perspectives: Journal of Archeology for Asia & the
Pacific, 52, 213-243.
Carter, J., Crawford, M., Lehman, P., Nikolaenko, G., & Trelogan, J. (2000). The Chora of Chersonesos in
Crimea, Ukraine. American Journal of Archaeology, 104, 707-741.
Chisholm, M. (1970). Rural settlement and land use. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Collins, J. (1990). The archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II. Springfield: Illinois Historic Preservation
Agency.
Collins, J., & Chalfant, M. (1993). A second terrace perspective on Monks Mound. American Antiquity,
58, 319-332.
Connolly, J., & Lake, M. (2006). Geographical information systems in archaeology. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Contreras, D. (2011). How far to Conchucos? A GIS approach to assessing the implications of exotic
materials at Chavín de Huántar. World Archaeology, 43, 380-397.
Dalan, R., Holley, G., Woods, W., Watters, H., Jr., & Koepke, J. (2003). Envisioning Cahokia: A landscape
perspective. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Dove, M. (2010). The panoptic gaze on a non-western setting: Self-surveillance on Merapi volcano, Central
Java. Religion, 40, 121-127.
Doyle, J., Garrison, T., & Houston, S. (2012). Watchful realms: Integrating GIS analysis and political
history in the southern Maya lowlands. Antiquity, 86, 792-807.
Drageset, A. (2017). Diachronic powerscapes: A case study from Odda Norway. In U. Rajala & P. Mills
(Eds.), Forms of dwelling: 20 Years of taskscapes in archaeology (pp. 171-189). Haverton, PA: Oxbow
Books.
Earle, T. K. (2001). The institutionalization of chiefdoms: Why landscapes are built. In J. Haas (Ed.), From
leaders to rulers: The development of political centralization (pp. 105-124). New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic.
Emerson, T. (1997). Cahokia and the archaeology of power. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Emerson, T., Alt, S., & Pauketat, T. (2008). Locating American Indian religion at Cahokia and beyond. In
L. Fogelin (Ed.), Religion, archaeology and the material world (pp. 216-236; Occasional Paper No.
36). Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.
Emerson, T., & Barry, L. (1991). Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian cultures of the
Midwest. Urbana: University of Illinois.
Epperson, T. (2000). Panoptic plantations: The garden sights of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason. In J.
Delle, S. Mrozowski & R. Playnter (Eds.), Lines that divide: Historical archaeologies of race, class,
and gender (pp. 58-77). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Eva, S., & Crema, E. (2014). A house with a view? Multi-model inference, visibility fields, and point pro-
cess analysis of a Bronze Age settlement on Leskernick Hill (Cornwall, UK). Journal of Archeological
Science, 43, 267-277.
Evans, R. (1982). The fabrication of virtue: English prison architecture, 1750-1840. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
20 Space and Culture 00(0)

Ewart, E. (2008). Seeing, hearing and speaking: Morality and sense among the Panará in Central Brazil.
Ethnos, 73, 505-522.
Fabrizio, E., & Garnero, G. (2013). The assessment of the visual perception in viewshed analysis for the
landscape settings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 44(s2), 478-482.
Fewkes, J. (1917). Archaeological investigations in New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 68, 1-38.
Fleming, A. (2006). Post-processual landscape archaeology: A critique. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal, 16, 267-280.
Forte, M. (2000). Archaeology and virtual micro-topography: The creation of DEMs for reconstructing fos-
sil landscapes by remote sensing and GIS applications. In G. Lock (Ed.), Beyond the map: Archaeology
and spatial technologies (pp. 199-213). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1986). Space, knowledge and power. In P. Rainbow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 239-
256). London, England: Penguin.
Fowler, M. (1974). Cahokia: Ancient capital of the Midwest (Modules in anthropology No. 48). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fowler, M. (1997). The Cahokia atlas: A historical atlas of Cahokia archaeology (Studies in archaeology
2). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Fox, A. (1985). History and heritage: The social origins of the British industrial relations system. London,
England: Allen and Unwin.
Friedman, H. (2008). Industry and empire: Administration of the Roman and Byzantine Faynan (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Leicester, England.
Gillings, M. (2009). Visual affordance, landscape, and the megaliths of Alderney. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology, 28, 335-356.
Gillings, M., & Wheatley, D. (2001). Seeing is not believing: Unresolved issues in archaeological visibil-
ity analysis. In S. Bozidar (Ed.), On the good use of geographical information systems in archaeo-
logical landscape studies. Proceedings of the COST G2 Working Group 2 round table (pp. 25-36).
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Gorenflo, L., & Gale, N. (2000). Mapping regional settlement in information space. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 9, 240-274.
Graves, W., & Van Keuren, S. (2011). Ancestral Pueblo villages and the Panopticon Gaze of the Commune.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 21, 263-282.
Gupta, A. (1998). Postcolonial developments: Agriculture in the making of Modern India. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Gusinde, M. (1931). The Fireland Indians: Vol. 1. The Selk’nam, on the life and thought of a hunting
people of the Great Island of Tierra del Fuego. Modling bei Wien, Austria: Verlag der Internationalen
Zeitschrift.
Haciguzeller, P. (2012). GIS, critique, representation and beyond. Journal of Social Archaeology, 12, 245-
263.
Hayes, A., & Windes, T. (1975). An Anasazi shrine in Chaco Canyon. In T. Frisbie (Ed.), Collected papers
in honor of Florence Hawley Ellis (pp. 143-156). Santa Fe: Archaeological Society of New Mexico.
Hazell, L., & Brodie, G. (2012). Applying GIS tools to define prehistoric megalith transport route corridors:
Olmec megalith transport routes: A case study. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39, 3475-3479.
Higuchi, T. (1983). The visual and spatial structure of landscapes (C. Terry, Trans.). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Hill, C. (1972). Society and puritanism in pre-revolutionary England. London, England: Secker & Warburg.
Hilton, R. (1973). Bond men made free: Medieval peasant movements and the English rising of 1381.
London, England: Methuen.
Holt, J. (2009). Rethinking the Ramey State: Was Cahokia the center of a theater state? American Antiquity,
74, 231-254.
Illinois Height Modernization Program. (2016). Illinois State Geological Survey, and Illinois Department
of Transportation, Illinois LiDAR county database. Retrieved from https://clearinghouse.isgs.illinois
.edu/data/elevation/illinois-height-modernization-ilhmp-lidar-data
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Abingdon, England:
Routledge.
Pierce and Matisziw 21

Iseminger, W. (2010). Cahokia Mounds: America’s first city. Charleston, SC: History Press.
Johnson, M. (1996). An archaeology of capitalism. Cambridge, England: Blackwell.
Johnson, M. (2012). Phenomenological approaches in landscape archaeology. Annual Review of
Archaeology, 41, 269-284.
Julius, N. (2012). Leçons Sur Les Prisons: Présentées En Forme De Cours Au Public Du Berlin En L’année
1827 (Reprint) [Prison Lessons: Public Presentation in Berlin in the year 1827]. Charleston, NC: Nabu
Press.
Kantner, J., & Hobgood, R. (2003). Digital technologies and prehistoric landscapes in the American
Southwest. In M. Forre, P. William & J. Wiseman (Eds.), The reconstruction of archaeological land-
scapes through digital technologies (pp. 117-123). Oxford, England: Archaeopress.
Kantner, J., & Hobgood, R. (2016). A GIS-based viewshed analysis of Chacoan tower kivas in the US
Southwest: Were they for seeing or to be seen? Antiquity, 90, 1302-1317.
Kaplan, M. (1995). Panopticon in Poona: An essay on Foucault and colonialism. Cultural Anthropology,
10, 85-98.
Kay, S., & Sly, T. (2001). An application of cumulative viewshed analysis to a medieval archaeological
study: The Beacon system of the Isle of Wright, United Kingdom. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 12,
167-179.
Kelly, J. (1997). Stirling-phase sociopolitical activity at East St. Louis and Cahokia. In T. Pauketat &
T. Emerson (Eds.), Cahokia: Domination and ideology in the Mississippian world (pp. 141-161).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kelly, J., & Brown, J. (2014). Cahokia: The processes and principles of the creation of an early Mississippian
City. In A. Creekmore III & K. Fisher (Eds.), Making ancient cities: Space and place in early urban
societies (pp. 292-323). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Knight, V. J. (2006). Symbolism of Mississippian mounds. In G. Waselkov, P. Wood & T. Hatley (Eds.),
Powatan’s mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast (pp. 421-435). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Kopper, P. (1986). The Smithsonian Book of North American Indians. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.
Krus, A. (2011). Refortifying Cahokia: More efficient Palisade construction through redesigned bastions.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 36, 227-224.
Lansing, J. (2003). The cognitive machinery of power: Reflections on Valeri’s The Forest of Taboos.
American Ethnologist, 30, 372-380.
Leone, M. (1995). A historical archaeology of capitalism. American Anthropologist, 97, 251-268.
Llobera, M. (2000). Understanding movement: A pilot model towards the sociology of movement. In G.
Lock (Ed.), Beyond the map (pp. 65-84). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Llobera, M. (2003). Extending GIS-based visual analysis: The concept of visualscapes. International
Journal of Geographic Information Systems, 17, 25-48.
Llobera, M. (2007). Reconstructing visual landscapes. World Archaeology, 39, 51-69.
Manning, R. (1988). Village revolts: Social protests and popular disturbances in England 1509-1640.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Marsh, J., & Schreiber, K. (2015). Eyes of the empire: A viewshed-based exploration of Wari site-place-
ment decisions in the Sondondo Valley, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 4, 54-64.
Marshall, M., Stein, J., Loose, R., & Novotny, J. (1979). Anasazi communities of the San Juan Basin.
Santa Fe: Santa Fe Public Service Company of New Mexico and New Mexico Historic Preservation
Division.
McGlade, J. (1995). Archaeology and the ecodynamics of human-modified landscapes. Antiquity, 69,
113-132.
McGrimsey, C., & Wiant, M. (1984). Limited archaeological investigations at Monks Mound (11-MS-38):
Some perspectives on its stability, structure, and age, studies in Illinois Archaeology No. 1. Springfield:
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
Milner, G. (1998). The Cahokian chiefdom: The archaeology of a Mississippian society. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.
Moore, J. (1992). Pattern and meaning in prehistoric Peruvian Architecture: The architecture of social con-
trol in the Chimu state. Latin American Antiquity, 3, 95-113.
Morris, S., & Papadopoulos, J. (2005). Greek Towers and slaves: An archaeology of exploitation. American
Journal of Archaeology, 109, 155-225.
22 Space and Culture 00(0)

Murakami, T. (2014). Social identities, power relations, and urban transformations: Politics of plaza con-
struction at Teotihuacan. In K. Tsukamoto & T. Inomata (Eds.), Mesoamerican plazas: Arenas of
community and power (pp. 34-49). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Murrieta-Flores, P. A. (2010). Traveling in a prehistoric landscape: Exploring the influences that shaped
human movement. In B. Frischer, J. Webb Crawford & D. Koller (Eds.), Making history interactive.
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Proceedings of the 37th
International Conference, Williamsburg, VA, USA, March 22-26 (BAR International Series S2079; pp.
249-267). Oxford, England: Archaeopress.
Ober, J. (1985). Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian land frontier. 404-322 B.C. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Ogburn, D. (2006). Assessing the level of visibility of cultural objects in past landscapes. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 33, 405-413.
Ong, A. (1987). Spirits of resistance and capitalist decline. Albany: SUNY Press.
Osborne, R. (1987). Classical landscape with figures: The Ancient Greek City and its countryside. London,
England: George Philip.
Pauketat, T. (1997). Cahokian political economy. In T. Pauketat & T. Emerson (Eds.), Cahokia: Domination
and ideology in the Mississippian World (pp. 30-51). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Pauketat, T. (2000). The tragedy of the commoners. In M. Dobres & J. Robb (Eds.), Agency in archaeology
(pp. 113-129). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pauketat, T. (2002). A fourth-generation synthesis of Cahokia and Mississippianization. Midcontinental
Journal of Archaeology, 27, 149-170.
Pauketat, T. (2004). Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Pauketat, T. (2013). An archaeology of the cosmos: Rethinking agency and religion in Ancient America.
London, England: Routledge.
Pauketat, T., & Alt, S. (2003). Mounds, memory, and contested Mississippian history. In R. Van Dyke & S.
Alcock (Eds.), Archaeologies of memory (pp. 151-179). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Pauketat, T., Emerson, T., Farkas, M., & Baires, S. (2015). An American Indian city. In T. Pauketat &
S. Alt (Eds.), Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian world (pp. 21-32). Santa Fe, NM: School for
Advanced Research Press.
Pauketat, T., & Koldenhoff, B. (2002). Cahokian ritual and the Ramey field: New insights form old collec-
tions. Southeastern Archaeology, 21, 79-91.
Petrie, L., Johnson, I., Cullen, B., & Kvamme, K. (1995). GIS in archaeology, an annotated bibliography
(Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 1). Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia:
Sydney University.
Pettegrew, D. (2001). Chasing the classical farmstead: Assessing the formation and signature of rural settle-
ment in Greek Landscape archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 14, 189-209.
Pliny, the Younger. (1936). Letters of Pliny the Younger. New York, NY: G.E. Stechert.
Podobnikar, T. (2012). Detecting mountain peaks and delineating their shape using digital elevation mod-
els, remote sensing and geographic information systems using autometric methodological procedures.
Remote Sensing, 4, 784-809.
Randle, L. (2011). Applying the Panopticon model to historic plantation landscapes through viewshed
analysis. Historical Geography, 39, 105-127.
Reed, N. (2009). Excavations on the third terrace and front ramp of Monks Mound, Cahokia: A personal
narrative. Illinois Archaeology, 21, 1-89.
Reed, N., Bennett, J., & Porter, J. (1968). Solid core drilling of Monks Mound: Technique and findings.
American Antiquity, 33, 136-148.
Renfrew, C. (1973). Monuments, mobilisation, and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex. In C.
Renfrew (Ed.), Explanation of culture change: Models in prehistory (pp. 539-558). London, England:
Duckworth.
Robinson, J., & Zubrow, E. (1999). Between spaces: Interpolation in archaeology. In D. Mattingly & M.
Gillings (Eds.), Geographical information systems and landscape archaeology (pp. 65-83). Oxford,
England: Oxbow Books.
Rofel, L. (1992). Rethinking modernity: Space and factory discipline in China. Cultural Anthropology, 7,
93-114.
Pierce and Matisziw 23

Romain, W. (2015). Moonwatchers of Cahokia. In T. Pauketat & S. Alt (Eds.), Medieval Mississippians:
The Cahokian world (pp. 33-42). Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
Rowe, J. (1966). The Renaissance foundations of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 67, 1-20.
Rowlandson, J. (1996). Landowners and tenants in Roman Egypt: The social relations of agriculture in the
Oxyrhynchite Nome. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Ruggles, C., Medyckyj-Scott, D., & Gruffydd, A. (1993). Multiple viewshed analysis using GIS and its
archaeological application: A case study in northern Mull. In J. Andresen, T. Madsen & I. Scollar
(Eds.), Computing the past: Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (pp. 125-
132). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
Schilling, T. (2010). An archaeological model of the construction of Monks Mound and implications for
the development of Cahokian Society (800–1400 A.D.) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St Louis,
MO: Washington University.
Schilling, T. (2012). Building Monks Mound, Cahokia, Illinois, A.D. 800-1400. Journal of Field
Archaeology, 37, 302-313.
Schilling, T. (2013). The chronology of Monks Mound. Southeastern Archaeology, 32, 1-15.
Scianna, A., & Villa, B. (2011). GIS applications in archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 22, 337-363.
Retrieved from http://www.archcalc.cnr.it/indice/PDF22/AC_22_Scianna_Villa.pdf
Semple, J. (1993). Bentham’s prison: A study of the Panopticon Penitentiary. Oxford, England: Clarendon
Press.
Seneca, L. A. (1917-1925). Moral epistles (R. M. Gummere, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Sharp, B. (1980). In contempt of all authority: Rural artisans and riot in the West of England, 1586-1660.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sherwood, S., & Kidder, T. (2011). The DaVincis of dirt: Geoarchaeological perspectives on mound build-
ing in the Mississippi River basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 30, 69-87.
Skele, M. (1988). The great knob. Studies in Illinois archaeology No. 4. Springfield: Illinois Historic
Preservation Agency.
Sofaer, A. (2007). The primary architecture of the Chacoan culture: A cosmological expression. In S. H.
Lekson (Ed.), The architecture of Chaco Canyon (pp. 225-254). Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
Sofaer, A., Marshall, M., & Sinclair, R. (1989). The great North Road: A cosmographic expression of the
Chaco culture of New Mexico. In A. Aveni (Ed.), World archaeoastronomy (pp. 365-376). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Stafford, C. (1995). Geoarchaeological perspectives on paleolandscapes and regional subsurface archaeol-
ogy. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 135-160.
Stancic, Z., & Veljanovski, T. (2000). Understanding Roman settlement patterns through multivariate sta-
tistics and predictive modeling. In G. Lock (Ed.), Beyond the map: Archaeology and spatial technolo-
gies (pp. 147-156). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Swanson, S. (2003). Documenting prehistoric communication networks: A case study in the Paquime pol-
ity. American Antiquity, 68, 753-767.
Tawny, R. (1912). The Agrarian problem in the sixteenth century. London, England: Longmans.
Tortorella, S. (2005). Il Repertorio Iconografico della Ceramica Africana a Rilievo del IV-V Secolo
D.C. [The Iconographic Repertoire of the African Relief Ceramics from the 4th and 5th Century CE].
Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité, 117(1), 173-198.
Triantafillou, P., & Nielson, M. (2001). Policing empowerment: The making of capable subjects. History of
the Human Sciences, 14(2), 63-86.
Trigger, B. (1990). Monumental architecture: A thermodynamic explanation of symbolic behavior. World
Archaeology, 22, 119-132.
Van Dyke, R. (2007). The Chaco experience: Landscape and ideology at the Center Place. Santa Fe, NM:
School for Advanced Research.
Vivian, G., & Mathews, T. (1965). Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III community in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.
Globe, AZ: Southwestern Monuments Association.
Wescott, K., & Brandon, R. (2000). Practical applications of GIS for archaeologists: A predictive modeling
toolkit. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
24 Space and Culture 00(0)

Wheatley, D. (1995). Cumulative viewshed analysis: A GIS based method for investigating intervisibility,
and its archaeological application. In G. Lock & Z. Stanic (Eds.), Archaeology and geographic infor-
mation systems: A European perspective (pp. 171-186). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
Wheatley, D., & Gillings, M. (2000). Visual perception and GIS: Developing enriched approaches to the
study of archaeological visibility. In G. Lock (Ed.), Beyond the map: Archaeology and spatial tech-
nologies (pp. 1-27). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Whitley, T. (2008). Understanding Cognitive Decision-Making and the Analysis of Cultural Landscapes at
Three Antebellum Rice Plantations on the Ogeechee River, Bryan County, Georgia. Paper presented at
the Symposium “Ending the Slave trade: A Bicentenary Inquiry”, College of Charleston, Charleston,
SC, March 26-29.
Williams, J. (2017). The archaeology of Roman Surveillance in the Central Alentejo, Portugal. (California
Classical Studies No. 5). Berkeley: California Classical Studies.
Witcher, R. (1999). GIS and landscapes of perception. In M. Gillings, D. Mattingly & J. van Dalen (Eds.),
Geographical information systems and landscape archaeology (pp. 13-22). Oxford, England: Oxbow
Books.
Wright, D., MacEachern, S., & Lee, J. (2014). Analysis of feature intervisibility and cumulative visibility
using GIS, Bayesian and spatial statistics: A study from the Mandara Mountains, Northern Cameroon.
PLoS One, 9(11), e112191. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112191
Yanoff, M., & Duker, J. S. (2014). Ophthalmology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Yerkes, R. (2005). Bone chemistry, body parts, and growth marks: Evaluating Ohio Hopewell and Cahokia
Mississippian seasonality, subsistence, ritual, and feasting. American Antiquity, 70, 241-265.
Ylimaunu, T., Lakomaki, S., Kallio-Seppa, T., Mullins, P., Nurmi, R., & Kuorilehto, M. (2014). Borderlands
a as spaces; Creating third spaces and fractured landscapes in medieval Northern Finland. Journal of
Social Archaeology, 14, 244-267.
Ylimaunu, T., Symonds, J., Mullins, P. R., Salmi, A.-K., Nurmi, R., Kallio-Seppa, T., . . .Tranberg, A.
(2014). Street mirrors, surveillance, and urban communities in early modern Finland. Journal of
Material Culture, 19, 145-167.
Young, B., & Fowler, M. (2000). Cahokia: The Great Native American Metropolis. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Zedeno, M. (2008). The archaeology of territory and territoriality. In B. David & J. Thomas (Eds.),
Handbook of landscape archaeology (pp. 210-217). Walnut, CA: Left Coast Press.

Key Online Resources

Cahokia Mounds homepage: https://www.cahokiamounds.org/
LiDAR data used: http://www.msdis.missouri.edu/data/lidar/index.html

Author Biographies
Daniel E. Pierce, PhD, is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Archaeometry Laboratory at the University
of Missouri Research Reactor. As a New World archaeologist, his primary research interests include social
stratification, geospatial and geochemical analysis, and trade of ancient materials such as pottery and stone
tools. His work has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Journal of
Archaeological Science, and Latin American Antiquity.
Timothy C. Matisziw, PhD, is an associate professor, Departments of Geography, Civil & Environmental
Engineering, and Informatics Institute at the University of Missouri. His current research addresses mod-
eling issues in transportation, location science, and spatial optimization and has appeared in journals such
as the Landscape Ecology, Environmental Modeling & Assessment, Computers & Operations Research,
Networks and Spatial Economics, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, and
Geographical Analysis.