The surveillance and control model, suggested by Terrence Epperson (1999:170), focuses on the issue of visibility as a primary motive for planters to design spaces to “make things seeable” while also producing “spaces of constructed invisibility” to monitor slaves’ behavior and conceal their presence. This paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of the panopticon model and its uses for plantation archaeology. The logic behind the panopticon is that structures or layout of buildings mold behavior; therefore, the panoptic plantation reinforces the master’s control over the enslaved population through the intervisibility between the big house and the slave settlement.

In the application of the panopticon as a model for plantations, historical archaeologists often interchange the concepts of Bentham and Foucault. Foucault is often cited when explaining the concept of visibility as a tool for surveillance and control. Foucault’s concept subscribes to the idea that those being surveilled will not only be aware of being surveilled but will also engage in self-surveillance between and among themselves. Whereas, Bentham’s model focuses directly on how the structure, in terms of buildings and layout, impose surveillance and control from a particular point. Using Cumulative Viewshed Analysis and other geostatistical technology, viewsheds are employed to critically assess the relative utility of panoptical model as applied to plantation archaeology on a regional scale. Understanding the settlement patterns along the East Branch of the Cooper River in relation to each other has the potential to provide insight into the lives of the enslaved population. The analysis vi presented in this paper is only a beginning into examining the African American landscape along the East Branch of the Cooper River in Berkeley County, South Carolina.