{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025510204081632654, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.628378378378378, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legacy of the ‘Fatal Shore’

Why does the theme of ‘confinement’ link historic-period heritage places across the continent of Australia? This article explores incarceration as not only a dominant theme in heritage-listed and archaeological sites from post-contact Australia, but also as a central underlying element in both Anglo-Australians’ sense of ambiguous difference from their European origins, and indigenous Australians’ painful experiences of engagement with the state. It considers the shared experiences of ‘confinement’ through a wide variety of registered convict, post-convict and indigenous heritage places in order to question how and why this theme has come to hold such a special resonance for different communities within modern Australia. Expanding upon Bruce Trigger’s classic definitions of ‘alternative archaeologies’, the authors suggest this resonance has resulted in the emergence of a post-colonial form of heritage practice within this settler nation.