Title: What you Lookin’ At?:An Archaeological Analysis of Graffiti andInscription at Fremantle Prison,
Western Australia

B'geella Romano

In partial completion of BA Honours Archaeology, 2015
Supervisors Sven Ouzman and Sean Winter1

Declaration

This dissertation contains no material which has been accepted for any award of any
other degree of diploma in any University, and, to the best of my knowledge andbelief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person,
except where due reference is made in the text of the dissertation.

B'geella Romano
Student No- 20448616

2

Abstract
Archaeological analysis of graffiti and inscription at Fremantle Prison investigates therelationship between space and people following previous studies of places ofconfinement. Graffiti offers testament to prisons being about people, furthermore,
graffiti as an indicator of the inmate experience is a contributing element to thesignificance of Fremantle Prison as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This dissertation
presents the process of academic research and fieldwork that has informed
investigation of how inmates experienced and negotiated confinement at Fremantle
Prison through the lens of an archaeological analysis of their graffiti and inscriptions.
An archaeological analysis of inscription at Fremantle Prison approaches graffiti andother marks as artefacts to be mapped categorised, dated and contextualised, usinga hybrid of rock art and historical archaeology methodologies. It addresses how
graffiti was used by prisoners as a means for expression and messaging and how
this reflects inmate coping strategies. Results determined there is a relationshipbetween graffiti typology and spatial positioning of graffiti within the cells and yards
that indicate prisoners constructed and utilised public and private space within theprison to.re-map space as a means for coping with the strictures of institutional life.
Employing an archaeological perspective allows graffiti to be read as ‘text as material
culture’ and as a primary evidence of inmate’s experience and negotiation ofconfinement.

3

Acknowledgements

Thanks to ACCAI for granting me the Student Support Fund that allowed me to pay
for fieldwork materials and present my findings at the AAA/ASHA conference 2014 in
Cairns.

Conference delegates, for their enthusiastic responses to my paper and their votes
that won me the prize for best student paper on social archaeology/CHM(maritime/historical archaeology).

Most importantly, huge thanks to my ever patient supervisors, Sven Ouzman and
Sean Winter for their unwavering enthusiasm and support. Between Sean's
encyclopaedic knowledge of the West Australian convict system and history ofFremantle Prison and Sven's rock art expertise and experience in wrangling the wildclass of material evidence that is graffiti, I was afforded the best possible guidance
for this somewhat anarchic project and consider myself incredibly fortunate.

Thank you to the staff and at Fremantle Prison (especially Olympia Cullity and Luke
Donegan) for allowing me unfettered access to the prison cells and yards.

Thanks to all my hard working volunteers: Ross Bertinshaw, Jaquline Brisbout, India
Dilkes-Hall, Rebecca Foote, Callum Forsey, Liesel Gentelli, Kirstey Gilmore, William
Heath, Lara Jordan, Jessica Laurier, Liam Phillips, Lilly Rogers, Rebecca Stewart,
and Steve Wells without whom my fieldwork would not have been possible.

4

Special thanks to my friend and colleague, Jane Fyfe who, as well as assisting in thefield and the writing process, inspired me to take on this project.

Thank you to the Romano-Dessauers', my patient husband Paul Dessauer and our
girls, Hunter and Priya as well as my mum, Rachael Romano for her invaluableassistance in the field and continual support and encouragement.

5

Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................... 15
Thesis statement...................................................................................................... 17
Definition of key terms: ............................................................................................ 18
Confinement:............................................................................................................ 18
Coping strategies: .................................................................................................... 19
Graffiti: ..................................................................................................................... 19
Inscription: ............................................................................................................... 20
Public /Private: ......................................................................................................... 20
Total institution: ........................................................................................................ 21
Significance:............................................................................................................. 21
Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 26
Chapter 2: Background ......................................................................................... 27
History of Fremantle Prison ..................................................................................... 27
Graffiti studies: ......................................................................................................... 31
Graffiti in contemporary contexts ............................................................................. 34
Graffiti and inscription in archaeology ...................................................................... 36
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ....................................................................... 39
Landscapes and spaces of domination and resistance: ........................................... 39
Graffiti, place-ma®king and ocularity: ...................................................................... 39

6

Subverting the gaze ................................................................................................. 42
Inscribing identity ..................................................................................................... 46
Why write?: The psychology of graffiti. .................................................................... 47
Resistance: .............................................................................................................. 48
Chapter 4: Methods and Data ............................................................................... 52
Sampling .................................................................................................................. 57
Recording Methods and data storage ...................................................................... 61
Typology of Marks.................................................................................................... 67
Love message.......................................................................................................... 68
Hate message .......................................................................................................... 69
Additional text .......................................................................................................... 70
Cathartic

72

Dating ...................................................................................................................... 72
Spatial Analysis........................................................................................................ 75
Historical Sources .................................................................................................... 79
Chapter 5: Results ................................................................................................. 81
The landscape of inscription .................................................................................... 81
Visibility vs pictorial .................................................................................................. 82
Visibility vs written .................................................................................................... 84
Visibility vs text detail ............................................................................................... 84
Visibility vs text detail (average size) ....................................................................... 86
The sites .................................................................................................................. 88
7

Site 1........................................................................................................................ 88
Site 2........................................................................................................................ 90
Site 3........................................................................................................................ 92
Site 4........................................................................................................................ 95
Site 5........................................................................................................................ 97
Site 6........................................................................................................................ 98
Site 7...................................................................................................................... 101
Site 8...................................................................................................................... 102
Site 9...................................................................................................................... 105
Site 10 .................................................................................................................... 107
Site 11 .................................................................................................................... 109
Site 12 .................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 6: Discussion ......................................................................................... 113
Why was graffiti permitted in 1991? ....................................................................... 113
Pictorial motifs........................................................................................................ 114
Cartoon motifs........................................................................................................ 114
Male and female figures ......................................................................................... 114
Other marks ........................................................................................................... 115
Icons ...................................................................................................................... 115
Drug related icons .................................................................................................. 118
Written motifs ......................................................................................................... 120
Administrative ........................................................................................................ 120
8

Authored motifs ...................................................................................................... 120
Cathartic motifs ...................................................................................................... 120
Additional text ........................................................................................................ 122
Hate messages ...................................................................................................... 124
Love messages ...................................................................................................... 125
Humour .................................................................................................................. 128
Motif size ................................................................................................................ 129
Tally marks............................................................................................................. 131
Toothpaste ............................................................................................................. 131
Evidence of paper on walls .................................................................................... 132
Variation between cells .......................................................................................... 133
Site 12 The Yard ................................................................................................... 134
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 140
Future applications................................................................................................. 142
References cited .................................................................................................. 143

9Appendices (electronic)

Appendix 1: Data from all sites. Printout of spreadsheets.
Appendix 2: Site recording forms and data10

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The main gate to Fremantle Prison, facing east.

15

Figure 1.2 Maps showing the location of Fremantle Prison and Perth, Western
Australia.
Figure 1.3 'Artists cell' Fremantle Prison, division 2, ground floor.

16
23

Figure 1.4 Faded motif from site 10 cell (D65) motif 3 (man’s head and text)
photographed in 2014.

25

Figure 1.5 Motifs from site 10 cell (D65) including motif 3 (man’s head and text)
photographed in 1991.

26

Figure 2.1 Prison Map showing main block and location of women's prison in thenorth west corner.

29

Figure 2.2 Night bucket/ ‘shit bucket’ referred to in site 10 graffiti.

31

Figure 2.3 Division 4 cell E30. Example of artwork, protected by perspex cover.

36

Figure 3.1 Muster board indicating cell occupants

41

Figure 3.2 Judas hole with cover. Semi-official inscription ‘searched 2-3-90’ is above.
43
Figure 3.3 Site 11 motif 167.Subversion of authoritative gaze. Peephole is an anus.
44
Figure 3.4 Site 10 motif 31.Subversion of authoritative gaze. Humour.

45

Figure 3.5 Site 3 motif 82. Subversion of the authoritative gaze. The guards gaze isfeminised.

45

Figure 3.6 Example of intentional resistance from site 11 (motif 24).

51

Figure 3.7 Example of unintentional resistance from site 6 (motif 4).

51

Figure 4.1 Main cell block map (Ref for map is CMP)

57

Figure 4.2 Maps of floors 1-3 Main Cell Block.

59

Figure 4.3 Reduced size, washed out image of the first page of a completed Site
Recording Form.
Figure 4.4 Context 1 oblique from outside
11

62
64

Figure 4.5 Context 2 face in64

Figure 4 6 Context 3 face out from rear wall

65

Figure 4. 7 Motif classification flow chart

67

Figure 4.8 Cathartic motif from site 10 (motif 8).

72

Figure 4.9 Degrees of visibility looking into a cell through the peephole. (birds-eye
view)

78

Figure 4.10 Degrees of visibility looking into a cell from the doorway (birds-eye view).
78

Figure 5.1 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility of pictorial motifs

83

Figure 5.2 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility of written motifs

85

Figure 5. 3 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility of motif text details

86

Figure 5.4 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility and size of motifs

87

Figure 5.5 Site 1(H63) visibility of written motifs

89

Figure 5. 6 Site 1(H63) visibility of written motifs (text detail)90

Figure 5.7 Site 2 (H60) visibility of pictorial motifs

91

Figure 5.8 Site 2 (H60) visibility of written motifs

92

Figure 5.9 Site 3 (H59) visibility of pictorial motifs

93

Figure 5.10 Site 3 (H59) visibility of written motifs

94

Figure 5.11 Site 3 (H59) visibility of written motifs (text detail)94

Figure 5.12 Site 4 (G15) visibility of pictorial motifs

95

Figure 5.13 Site 4 (G15) visibility of written motifs

96

Figure 5.14 Site 4 (G15) visibility of written motifs (text detail)96

Figure 5.15 Site 5 (F60) visibility of pictorial motifs

97

Figure 5.16 Site 5 (F60) visibility of written motifs

98

Figure 5.17 Site 6 visibility of pictorial motifs

99

Figure 5.18 Site 6 visibility of icon types

100

Figure 5.19 Site 6 visibility of written motifs

100

12

Figure 5.20 Site 6 visibility of written motifs (text detail)101

Figure 5.21 Site 7 visibility of pictorial motifs

102

Figure 5.22 Site 8 visibility of pictorial motifs

103

Figure 5.23 Site 8 visibility of pictorial motifs (icon type)103

Figure 5.24 Site 8 visibility of written motifs

104

Figure 5.25 Site 8 visibility of written motifs (text detail)104

Figure 5.26 Site 9 visibility of written motifs

106

Figure 5.27 Site 9 visibility of written motifs (text detail)106

Figure 5.28 Site 10 visibility of pictorial motifs

108

Figure 5.29 Site 10 visibility of written motifs (text detail)108

Figure 5.30 Site 11 visibility of pictorial motifs

109

Figure 5.31 Site 11 visibility of pictorial motifs (icon type)110

Figure 5.32 Site 11 visibility of written motifs

110

Figure 5.33 Site 11 visibility of motifs (text detail)111

Figure 5.34 Site 12 superposition of motifs

112

Figure 5. 36 Site 12 technique and classification of motifs

112

Figure 6.1 Highly visible geometric/icon motif site 11 motif 73. Meaning unknown. 116
Figure 6.2 Highly visible prison icon/male figure, site 11 motif 76.

117

Figure 6.3 Drug related motifs (private locale) in site 11. Motif 64 is text motif65 iscontextual syringe.
Figure 6.4 A cocktail of private drug motifs

117
119

Figure 6.5 Cathartic message intended for outsider gaze. Site 10 motif 17 (hidden)
Figure 6.6 Cathartic message intended for outsider gaze. Site 10 motif 12(highly
visible)Figure 6.7 Site 11 highly visible motifs,
13

122
123

1cathartic motif (motif 19) with additional text (motif 20)

123

Figure 6.8 Highly visible hate message directed at guards

125

Figure 6.9 Private hate message directed at cellmate

125

Figure 6.10 Site 10 motif 23 supportive message

126

Figure 6.11 Site 1 motif 15 close up of motif 15 the toothpaste splodge

130

Figure 6.12 Site 1 motif 15 (inscribed toothpaste splodge) and motif 14 incised tallymarks beneath paint layer

130

Figure 6.13 Division 2 yard, north-west corner. Site 12 panel and Perspex covered
photograph of the, now faded, mural

134

Figure 6.14 Mounted photograph of the mural that used to cover site 12 panel

135

Figure 6.15 S12. Incised woman’s face, layer 1 of 3

136

Figure 6.16 Site 12 motif 54

138

Figure 6.17 Motif 29

139

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Number of cells recorded in Main Cell Block Division 2.

58

Table 5.1 Location of sites and number of motifs

81

14

Chapter 1: Introduction
When entering Fremantle Prison through the main gate, (Figure 1.1) the physicality of
the heavy gates and high stone walls convey a sense of ominous portent that for
prisoners must have been all too real. What one finds within these walls is a plethoraof inscription. The most obvious is administrative, dictatorial signage demarcating alandscape of order and control. Once inside the prison cells it is clear that thesecramped, hot and dirty living quarters once housed a variety of men, whose names
and personal histories mark the walls.

Figure 1.1 The main gate to Fremantle Prison, facing east.

15

Figure 1.2 Maps showing the location of Fremantle Prison and Perth, Western Australia.
Sources: Fremantle conservation management plan 2010 and www bom.gov.au

The historic site of Fremantle Prison overlooks the port of Fremantle, which issituated 19km from Perth, Western Australia (shown in figure 1.2). Built by convict
labour, Fremantle Prison operated as the state's maximum security prison, housing
inmates from 1855 – 1991. The prison is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site
and is currently open to the public as tourist attraction and museum space. Thisdissertation presents fieldwork and research that informed analysis of Fremantle
Prison's inmate graffiti. This is followed by results and discussion of graffiti motifs andtheir spatial context within the prison. Building off previous studies of graffiti from
Fremantle Prison (Casella 2009; Palmer 1997) this project took a systematic
approach to recording and assessment of all marks, which yielded an abundance ofdata. Possible discussion afforded by the plethora of graffiti and it's variables within
the data collected for this project is beyond the scope of this dissertation. As such,the focus of this study is a spatial analysis of various inscriptions within 11 cells and 1
yard space. The temporal parameters set for analysis of graffiti from division 2 of The
Main Cell Block (men's prison) are restricted to 1970 - 1991 when the site ceased tofunction as a working prison. Data from trial field recording of graffiti in the women's
prison carried out by myself and my team of volunteers, has not been included in this16

dissertation as the women's prison ceased to house female prisoners in 1971 and did
not yield a data set that would be comparable to the disproportionately large amountof graffiti in the men's prison. Archaeological analysis of inscription at Fremantle
Prison approaches graffiti and other marks as artefacts to be mapped categorised,
dated and contextualised, using a hybrid of rock art and historical archaeology
methodologies to investigate inmate’s experiences of confinement.
Thesis statement

This archaeological analysis of inscription at Fremantle Prison approaches graffiti
and other marks as artefacts to be mapped categorised, dated and contextualised,by combining rock art and historical archaeology methodologies. This archaeologicalperspective allows graffiti to be understood as 'text as material culture' and as
primary evidence of inmate's and other prison inhabitant's experience and negotiationof confinement.

Aim

My aim is to address how graffiti was made and used as a means of expression andmessaging by inmates at Fremantle Prison. This includes determining if inscription of
space was used by inmates to cope with physical and social confinement. This aim
includes contextualising prison spaces in relation to contrasting constructions ofpublic and private places and understanding how making graffiti re-maps the prison's‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces.

17

I proposed to achieve my research aim via five methodological objectives:

Objectives

1. Construct a typology of Fremantle Prison inscriptions, to include categories like:written and pictorial 'graffiti', and expanded upon these primary classifications toallow both quantitative and qualitative interpretation of the motifs under analysis.

2. Identify the functions of different kinds of inscriptions in reference to theirtypology.

3. Create a vista of visibility as per the gaze of the guards to determine whether
there is a correlation between the types of inscription and their placement.

4. Conduct archival and literary research to further contextualise Fremantle Prison's
inscriptions.

5. Employ archaeological approaches to ascertain temporal contexts for graffiti andother inscriptions.

Definition of key terms:
The following 7 key terms are integral to my research and require definition
respective to both the discipline of archaeology and the socio-spatial context ofFremantle Prison.

Confinement:

The OED (2014) defines confinement as the condition of being confined, imprisoned
or 'limited to certain conditions'. Confinement in prison is currently the most common

18form of incapacitation or containment of an individual judged to be a threat to society(Lanier and Henry 2010:76). Confinement at Fremantle Prison took the form of both
cellular confinement (where one or two men occupied a small locked space) andcongregate confinement (where around 150 men were confined as a group in theexercise yards) (Bavin 1994:41-42, 246). As such, the term 'confinement' is used tomean both physical and social containment and exclusion from the broader
community, family and friends within contexts not of an individual’s choosing.

Coping strategies:'Coping strategies' is used in reference to individuals' responses to the experience ofbeing incarcerated. Coping can be thought of as the way in which people apply
action in response to stressful events (Zamble and Porporino 1990:54). Following
Mohino et al (2004:41) I use Lazarus and Folkman's (1984:141) definition of coping
as 'constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external
and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of aperson'.

Mitigation of stress and means for coping are interrelated, thus coping strategies areboth created and bound by environmental context.

Graffiti:

Definitions of 'graffiti' abound, they often begin with the literal translation from the
Italian graffiare, 'to scratch' where graffiti and singular graffito are 'little scratchings'
and the Greek graphein 'to write' (e.g. Forster et al 2012:45;Ouzman 2010:2;Abel andBuckley 1977: 3). Whether discussing graffiti's antiquity in ancient Greek and Romantimes or graffiti in contemporary contexts, graffiti can be characterised by its illicit
19

nature, the propensity for its use to appropriate space and as testimony of identity(see Forster et al 2012:45;Merrill 2011:63;Ouzman 2010:2;Young 2010:100;
Frederick 2009:212;Abel and Buckley 1977:4). Most of these definitions are fluid yetbound by context (e.g. Feni 2012:74). Thus, for the purposes of this study I am drawn
to Ferrell's (1993:168) articulation of what graffiti is and is not: 'Graffiti is not an
abstraction driven by the concept of style, or the force of aesthetics; it is a collective
activity

constructed

out

of

the

practical

aesthetics

of

its

writers'.

This

conceptualisation of graffiti is in keeping with a pragmatic archaeological approachthat views semiotics from a Peircian perspective whereby 'signs function not only torepresent social reality, but also to create it and effect changes in that reality'(Preucel 2006:249)

Inscription:

Inscription at Fremantle prison takes both the literal form of delineated writing or
marks made in or on something (OED 2014) and figurative inscription whereby
negotiations between the body and space result in place-making and performance ofidentity and power.

Public /Private:

The concept of public vs. private contexts in which art forms are represented informs
assessment of differentiation of social contexts relating to who was viewing the art
and what social messaging processes were taking place (McDonald and Veth
2006:102). The social context of Fremantle Prison is one of discipline andsurveillance. Within places of enforced confinement ‘inspection functions ceaselessly’(Foucault 2008:195) and the panoptic gaze demands a reconceptualization of what is20

'private' and 'public'. Thus ‘privacy’ is a construct, where space is less visible, rather
than privacy proper, where an individual is free from observation and scrutiny.

Total institution:

The physical and social context of Fremantle Prison situates it within theencompassing tendencies that fulfil criteria within Goffman's (1968) definition of 'total
institutions'.

Specifically,

Goffman's

characterisation

of

total

institutions

as'symbolised by the barrier to social intercourse with the outside and to departure thatis often built right into the physical plant, such as locked doors, high walls [and]barbed wire' (Goffman 1968:15-16). Individuals bound within the culture of total
institutions such as jails, which are organised with the intention of protecting thecommunity against those sequestered, are divided into two distinct categories(Goffman 1968:18). These are- inmates, who constitute the large, managed
population that reside within the institutional confines and have restricted contact withthe world beyond the walls. The second category consists of, a small group of
supervisory staff who are employed as agents of surveillance and order, whose
social lives extend into the outside world (Goffman 1968:18). The social and culturaldivision between staff and inmate is an implication of the bureaucratic administrationof large blocks of people (Goffman 1968:20).

Significance:
Fremantle Prison has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2010 (UNESCO
2014) and is in constant need of archaeological research and management; with theformer informing the later. The University of Western Australia (UWA) has been
21

involved at Fremantle Prison through Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting since 2005. With the demise of Eureka in 2013, heritage management
work has been incorporated into a MoU between UWA Archaeology and the Prison
signed in December, 2013 (Winter pers com 2014). Such work includes analysis ofunderfloor deposits carried out by Mein (2012). Current projects include a five year
research project headed by Sean Winter which has included excavation of the oldbathhouse site as part of archaeology fieldwork training for students, and Thomas
Whitley's 3D immersive model of Fremantle Prison.

Over 25 years ago, recommendations for conservation, directed to the Fremantle
Prison Trust Advisory Committee by architectural historian J.S Kerr on behalf of the
Department of Contract and Management Services, clearly states the significance ofgraffiti and official marks (such as signs and notices) as an integral part of theprison's fabric. For example, Policies 14.1 to 15.2 place recording and conservationof these inscriptions as keystone activities (Kerr 1998:17). Policy 14.3 suggests 'The
criteria for assessment (of ‘inventory and significance’ of graffiti and murals: policy
14.2 ) should be based on the ability of the work to help explain attitudes and beliefs
of prisoners and staff, and of the contribution made to the atmosphere and characterof the place, as well as on conventional artistic and literary qualities.' (Kerr 1998:17)
The importance of graffiti as an indicator of the inmate experience is noted by Kerr
(1998:6) as a contributing element to the significance of the World Heritage site
(UNESCO 2014). Historian, Palmer (1997:107) cites and supports Kerr's (1992)
concern that written text not perceived as 'legitimate' is at risk of being lost. However,unlike conservation of other historical structures, curatorial interest in theconservation and presentation of historic prisons has shown little concern forindicators of how inmates effected their physical environment (Wilson 2008). Thus, to22

a certain extent the relationship between the inhabitants and the place as mediatedby an admittedly feral category of artefact (graffiti), has been ignored. There is afocus on Fremantle Prison's 'art' (Wilson 1992), which consists of sanctioned murals
and socially palatable drawings or paintings presented in the prison's Art Tour, see
Figure 1.3. This art powerfully showcases inmate creativity but is shown in isolationfrom the other kinds of inscriptions inmates and guards made. This results in a
skewed presentation of the prison's inscribed landscape and people's experiences ofit.

Figure 1.3 'Artists cell' Fremantle Prison, division 2, ground floor.

At other historic jails, with the exception of Adelaide Jail (Agutter 2013) andMelbourne City Watch House (Wilson 2008) it is the norm for authorities responsiblefor decommissioned prisons to either ignore or efface graffiti (Wilson 2008). Yet
graffiti provides primary testimonial evidence inscribed within the built fabric of
institutional places, (Casella 2007; Casella 2009). Encouragingly, there is a growing
trend in archaeological scholarship and heritage management practice (see, forexample, the graffiti theme section of the June 2014 issue of Australian Archaeology)
to investigation of ways in which graffiti speaks directly for people, especially those
who are disempowered or marginalised. Thus, analysis of Fremantle Prison's graffiti

23

provides insight into the personal experience of prison inmates and employees that is
not typically recorded in official histories. The idea that graffiti offers testament toprisons being 'about people' (Palmer 1997; Wilson 1992) is not new, though it
remains a nascent field with only episodic rather than sustained investigation.
Building on Daniel Palmer's (1997) reading of Fremantle Prison graffiti, as 'subtext
beneath the 'official history' of the site' (Palmer Research file 41a:2) archaeologicalinvestigation of inscription at Fremantle Prison provides a more specificunderstanding of inmate's experiences of confinement. Attention to typologies andtheir placement, reveals more than a signature of defiance within an unequal power
structure, an approach that has received scholarly attention (See Casella 20-

07; Casella 2009; Halsey 2002; Palmer 1997; Wilson 2008a; Wilson; 2008b; Wilson
2008c; 2008d).

Evidence of deterioration

Although precise dates may not be determined by the degree of fading of motifs,
relative dates, or at least the sequence of inscription of motifs may be determined by
the amount of fading of a particular motif in relation to others within the same site.
Evidence of fading is undeniable when comparing photographs of motifs from 1991
to photographs of the same motifs taken in 2014. These comparison photographs
also shed light on the condition of other motifs that do not have comparable photos
from 1991. The faded appearance that may have been interpreted as ‘evidence ofremoval’ (this may also be the case in some motifs) is in fact due to fading. Theorange/red pigment of some motifs such as motif 3 from site 10 shown in Figure 1.424was most likely, originally black in colour. Not only does this highlight the need for
documentation and or, preservation of these vulnerable inscriptions but also indicatesthat the recorded colours may not be representative of the appearance (colour) of
motifs at the time they were made. Site10 cell (D65) has a number of poems,
statements and stories,(some of which surround motif 3 in Figure 1.5) all cathartic innature, that on first glance one might think were made as messages to people who
might see them after the prisons closure. However the faded red poems and stories
were almost certainly made some time prior to those in site10 (D65) that are black,bold and easy to read.

Figure 1.4 Faded motif from site 10 cell (D65) motif 3 (man’s head and text) photographed in 2014.

25

Figure 1.5 Motifs from site 10 cell (D65) including motif 3 (man’s head and text) photographed in 1991.
Source: Fremantle Prison archive.

Ethics
I have not interviewed any prisoners, guards or the like to avoid transgressing the
ethical parameters I have set for this project. Of the 1,500 plus, photographs taken ofpanels and motifs, a large number contain identifiers of individuals and content which
has the potential to incriminate or embarrass these people, many of whom would bealive today. As such, I have not supplied photographs other than those illustrating
this dissertation, and names or other personal identifiers have been obscured inthese photos. Appendix 2 contains scanned copies of all recording forms relevant tothis dissertation and has been supplied for marking purposes only. However,photographs and transcripts of motif (text and drawing) details can be made available
on request, pending ethics approval.

26

Chapter 2: Background
This chapter situates Fremantle Prison temporally and culturally anddiscusses the history and application of graffiti studies to archaeological andother discourses.

History of Fremantle Prison
The convict system in Western Australia has been labelled as a post-script toconvictism and, unlike convict places in the Eastern States of Australia,
convict history in Western Australia according to Millett (2003:10) has gone
‘almost entirely unexplored’. In light of contemporary scholarship (see Winter2013; Gibbs 2001; Bavin 1994) this is somewhat of an overstatement.

Fremantle Prison is listed as one of eleven complementary UNESCO World
Heritage Sites under the 'Australian Convict Sites' National Heritage list of
July 2010. Fremantle Prison was the central feature of the physicallandscape of reform, control and punishment of convicts within the penal
system in Western Australia, ‘around which a system of smaller regional
convict depots operated’ (Winter 2013:57). Reform of the criminal class was
the priority, a feature that exemplifies the way in which Western Australia
enacted a specific form of convictism tailored to the needs of The Swan River
Colony. The Western Australian penal system differed to its counterparts inother parts of Australia. In 1829 Western Australia was settled as a freecolony and operated as a penal colony from 1850 in response to thestruggling colony's need for a labour force and increased capitol (see Winter2013; Gibbs 2001; Bavin 1994). Fremantle prison was built by convict labour
27between 1852-1859 and prisoners were first moved to the main cell block in1855 (Kerr 1998:4). Fremantle Prison was used to accommodate and‘process newly arrived convicts before they received ticket of leave’ (Winter2013:57). During the second phase of the penal system in The Swan River
Colony (1857-1862), Fremantle Prison was used more as a place ofpunishment due to the increase in the number of probation convicts and alower number of ticket-of-leave men, who constituted the majority of thelabour force at this time (see Winter 2013; Millett 2007; Gibbs 2001). In 1886
Fremantle Prison became the main colonial prison housing, male, female
and juvenile prisoners, some of whom were brought from Perth Gaol (Bavin
1994:99). Perth Gaol, which is now the rear building of the Western
Australian Museum located on the corner of Francis and Beaufort streets
was built in 1856 to replace the inadequately sized lock-up on St Georges
Terrace as well as to house long-term prisoners (Bavin 1994:103). In 1858 all
prisons were handed from Colonial to Imperial control and Perth Gaolbecame a depot for the Convict Establishment, accommodating Imperial
prisoners until its closure in 1888 (Bavin 1994:107). Excluding Fremantle
Prison and the Perth Gaol section of the Museum of Western Australia,
Millett's (2003) assertion rings true when visiting convict built, historicbuildings in Western Australia. Places such as The Fremantle Arts Centre,
the main building of the Western Australian Museum, Albany Museum andthe old Maritime Museum in Fremantle, are not presented to the public as
being intrinsically linked to the convict past.

Although female prisoners and juveniles were incarcerated at Fremantle
Prison from 1880 their numbers (particularly juveniles) were purportedly few
28

(Bavin 1994:99). From 1880 to 1886, it seems there were no more than 50
female prisoners and a very small number of juveniles (Bavin 1994:100).
There was a marked increase of around 100 female prisoners between 1887
and 1888 consistent with the rapid increase of the number of male prisoners
from 100 male individuals in1885 to around 800 men by 1896 (Bavin
1994:99,100). However, the female population never exceeded 150
individuals (Bavin 1994:100). In 1889, the north-west corner of the prison
grounds was utilised for a female division shown in the lower left corner of
Figure 2.1 wherein the women were formally segregated from the main
(male) prison population (Bavin 1994:101; Kerr 1998:59).

N
Figure 2.1 Prison Map showing main block and location of women's prison in the north west
corner.

29

Cells in the female division were slightly larger than those in the men's
division.

They

were,

however,

up

to

2-3

inchesnarrowerthancontemporaneous women's prison cells in Victoria and Brisbane (Kerr
1998:59; Kerr 1988:153). Female inmates were transferred to Bandyup
women's facility from January 1970 (Fremantle Prison CMP 2010:13) andsome male inmates were relocated to Canning Vale Prison in 1982 as asolution to overcrowding and in preparation for the closure of Fremantle
Prison in 1991 (Bavin 1994:102). The issue of overcrowding was not new.
Indeed, the living conditions at Fremantle Prison continued to be a bone ofcontention for inmates. The most common grievances relating to physicalconditions were the lack of ventilation within the cells, insect and rodent
infestation and matters of hygiene - particularly the 'night buckets' shown in
Figure 2.2 which were used in place of toilets right up to the prison's closure(Kerr 1998; McGivern 1988; Prisoner services Division1986; Withnell1984).
These conditions and grievances continued up to the prison's closure in
1991, when the remaining inmates were transferred to Casuarina andCanning Vale Prisons. (CMP 2010; Kerr 1998; Bavin 1994).

The prison riot of 1968 was prompted by overcrowding and living conditions
considered antiquated as early as the late 19 th century, and saw little to nochange over the twenty years following the riot (Bavin 1994:102; Megahey
2000:134). Despite recommendations by a Royal Commission in 1983 for theprison's closure, substandard physical conditions and inmate discontent
prevailed; On 31 December 1987 a 'sit in' was held by prisoners in Two
Division in protest (Gore 1990:38). The enquiry into the riot, fire and hostagetaking incident of 1988 found that the 1987 episode may have been an
30

important precipitating factor to this event (Gore 1990:38). Although somepost 1990 graffiti within the prison cells speaks directly of inmate distress attheir living conditions, for example: site 5 (F60) motif 14, which reads ‘Hot
Night’ and poems from site 10 (D65) which refer to the ‘shit bucket’, see
Figure 2.2 ‘cockroaches and rats’ and ‘being locked up like animals’, thevoices of the inmates pre 1991 are inaudible.

Figure 2.2 Night bucket/ ‘shit bucket’ referred to in site 10 graffiti.

Graffiti studies:
The study of graffiti is present within a broad range of disciplines fromreligious studies of graffiti from the ancient world (e.g. Gustafsson 1956) toarchaeological analysis of contemporary graffiti production (e.g. Frederick2014). Graffiti in the ancient world has received scholarly attention and been
accepted as an indicator of the social and political lives of past peoples(Baird and Taylor 2011; Plesch 2002; Reisner 1971). Within academic
discussion of the Greek and Roman world, graffiti has been defined as text orimages ‘which appear in unexpected places’ (Baird and Taylor 2011:4). Thisdefinition is apt when considering scholarly discussion of contemporary
historical graffiti. For example, the archaeological approach taken by Fyfe’s

31

(2010) analysis of graffiti in rock art and Winchester et al’s (1996) ethnohistorical focus in northern Queensland, both examine aspects of European
presence in Australian Indigenous landscapes. The context of these
inscribed landscapes differs to the context of Fremantle prison, which rather
than being a landscape which people dwell within and move through (bychoice); Fremantle prison is a landscape of confinement and containmentthat is (like the graffiti within it) physically and socially restricted.

Ethnographic discussion by Wilson (2008a,b,c,d) of prison graffiti in Australia
is pertinent to this dissertation, within these texts Wilson addresses topics ofrace (Wilson 2008d) power and gender (Wilson 2008c) and the social
psychology of inmates (Wilson 2008b) as signified by their graffiti. Wilson(2008a;2008b) casts the gaze of social historian to disentangle inmate
narratives

via

historicalandphysicaltraceswithinAustralia’s

decommissioned Prisons. Wilson (2008a;2008b) speaks of historic prisonsthat operate as museums, as venues of ‘dark tourism’ citing Fremantle
Prison as an example of a site where graffiti exists, but is not included as aspectacle that permits tourist’s voyeuristic ‘othering’ ‘of the imagined
inmates’. This avenue of critique has influenced the way in which I havethought about the presentation of data from my study; taking care to not
become a ‘dark tourist’ myself.

Forster (2012) assesses the ways in which historic graffiti is evaluated using
European case studies from ninth century ruinic inscriptions from Scotland,
to the modern day stencil art of street artist, Banksy. Forster (2012:45)
critically analyses the ‘Scottish Historic Environment Policy’ and additional

32

criteria, (supplemented by the Burra Charter) that aid determination of thecultural significance of graffiti in Europe. Forster (2012) suggests culturally
significant contemporary graffiti, as well as historic graffiti, is at risk of being
overlooked and should be assessed within cultural heritage management
criteria that evaluate significance beyond aesthetic components of the graffiti.
Forster’s (2012) discussion is relevant to assessment of graffiti at Fremantle
Prison in relation to problems surrounding determining what graffiti issignificant and what is not. For example, the detailed and beautiful friezes,
nineteenth century forger James Walsh drew on his cell walls, and kept
hidden by covering with porridge, are historically significant, aestheticallypleasing and a feature of inmate creativity and resistance at Fremantle
Prison. In light of, Palmer’s (1997:105) assertion that: the relatively
contemporary graffiti at Fremantle prison ‘can be read as a suppressed
subtext beneath the official history’ in concert with other features, the graffiti
fulfils criteria for significance and preservation as assessed by Forster(2012).

Within crime research, the analysis of graffiti has informed the study of
institutional cultures. Klofas and Cutshall's (1985) study of graffiti sought toidentify processes of socialisation in correctional communities by using
graffiti as a tool of 'unobtrusive research'. Within their (1985) criminology
research, Koflas and Cutshall draw on archaeological approaches to graffiti
analysis in conjunction with sociological methodology to reconstruct aspectsof confinement at the decommissioned juvenile correction facility, ‘Institutefor Juvenile Guidance' Bridgewater Massachusetts. Amongst other findings,
Koflas and Cutshall (1985:361-369) identified that the graffiti demonstrated
33

the importance of group affiliations and support between peers and that
inscription of names and 'hometown identifiers' were a marker of group andindividual identities. Although the inmate demographic of Fremantle Prison
differs from that of ‘Institute for Juvenile Guidance', my approach to graffiti at
Fremantle Prison and subsequent findings (unintentionally) mirror those of
Koflas and Cutshall (1985:361) in that the cell walls display ‘a mixture ofmarkings, some meant for public display, some for more restricted audiences
and some [that] are clearly personal messages intended only for the author.’

Graffiti in contemporary contexts

Ferrell (1993) takes an anarchistic approach to criminology, addressing thepolitics of culture and crime using case studies of urban hip-hop graffiti from
Denver Colorado to investigate the phenomenology of graffiti more broadly.
Ferrell (1993) articulates the language of urban graffiti and sociologicaltheory behind its production. As well as providing explication of 'hip hop'/'graff' culture that was particularly useful for interpretation of motifs in site 4cell G15. Ferrell's (1993:178) conceptualisation of ‘the aesthetics of authority’supports ideas within this dissertation pertaining to why certain motifs at
Fremantle Prison were placed in private locales within the cells. Ferrell's(1993) term 'aesthetics of authority' describes a hegemonic ideologicalconstruct that dictates what is and what is not a threat to social order basedon the appearance and meaning of particular graffito.

In contemporary urban contexts, graffiti that is considered morally dangerous
or aesthetically offensive to the authoritative eye is removed more readily
and the perpetrators punished (see Young 2010). My data indicating the34

preference for placement of these kinds of graffiti (in cell spaces) beyond thegaze of the guards, suggests this attitude was shared by Fremantle Prison
administration.

Linguistic approaches, for example Nilsen (1980) address the ways in which
the language and syntax of graffiti responds to and reworks literary
convention using rhetoric and humour as a tool for social commentary.
Similarly, Feni's (2012) theoretical approach to graffiti discusses theintersection of politics and place as grammatology.

Such approaches broaden the scope for understanding written motifs within
Fremantle Prison graffiti. Cresswell (1996:46) analyses the ‘where’ of graffiti
from a social geographer’s perspective, addressing the way in which graffiti
disobeys ‘the laws of place that tell us what is and what is not appropriate’.
Cresswell’s (1996) conceptualisation of graffiti as a tool for subverting
authority, whereby graffiti refuses compliance with its context, directlytranslates to the context of Fremantle prison. Specifically, Cresswell(1986:37) articulates how graffiti is legitimated by transforming graffitists into
artists by putting graffiti/art where it belongs, thus, its criminality and meaning
are negated, and the ‘threat to order’ defused. This is very much the case forthe presentation of inmate art at Fremantle Prison. Display of artworks on thewalls of division 2 ground floor cells such as the example in Figure 1.3
where orthodox mark making was allowed and previously unofficial space isre-presented and becomes ‘in place’, results in the recontextualisation of
inscription. Artworks created by select inmates who participated in theprison’s art program remain the property of the prison and have been

35

exhibited in the prison’s courtyard gallery/museum. In some instances
artworks such as The Rainbow Serpent and Spirit Children painted by Peter
Irwin Cameron (Wilson1992:5) shown in Figure 2.3 were commissioned andpreserved beneath perspex. This is analogous to Cresswell’s (1996)
discussion surrounding New York graffiti art that is made for public
consumption and exhibited exclusively in gallery spaces, in other words, inthe right place.

Figure 2.3 Division 4 cell E30. Example of artwork, protected by perspex cover.

Graffiti and inscription in archaeology

Traditionally archaeology has been thought of as the study of the pastthrough its material remains. Increasingly, contemporary scholarship inarchaeology has approached material remains in terms of the ‘relationshipbetween people and their material pasts’ (see Schofield et.al 2012:5; Hodder
2003:4). As a material trace/artefact graffiti is a multifaceted class of material
culture, as it is both a sign in the sense that it is material remnant and a sign36

in the semiotic sense. Thus, archaeologically, graffiti is a material signatureof the relationship between the people who make and read these signs andthe built fabric of inscribed places.
Merrill and Hack’s (2012) investigation of Soviet conscript graffiti at a former
military site near Berlin, applies methods in social archaeology, using graffiti
as a device for interpreting the less discussed phase of the site 1945-1994
Merrill and Hack (2012:107) based their typology on ‘mode’ of graffiti and‘material of execution’, with attention to the spatial context of the graffiti. They
noted patterns of use in private and public areas, which they define for thesite broadly, and in more localised terms. Application of archaeological
techniques at this site yielded a host of information that as well as
supplementing the site’s narratives, provided information which could be
used for further cultural heritage management of the site.

Casella’s (2009) archaeological study of graffiti within places of confinement,complemented by her research and discussion surrounding the archaeology
of confinement in post-colonial Australia (see Casella and Fredericksen
2001;Casella

2001;2004;2005;2007)

informed

myresearch

into

the

relationship between inmates at Fremantle prison and their inscriptions, andprisons more broadly. Casella (2009:186) uses international examples ofgraffiti from both historic and contemporary places of institutional
confinement, dissecting meaning and function from inmate graffiti, with afocus on signatures of resistance, to illuminate the ‘hidden transcripts thatoffer a testimony to the inmate experience’ (Casella 2009:186). Casella’s
37

(2009) work includes examples from Fremantle prison, which provided avaluable starting point for this dissertation.
Frederick’s (2014:93) archaeological analysis of contemporary graffiti in
Perth, Western Australia, approaches graffiti production as an ‘artefact
generating activity’. Frederik’s approach considers archaeological evidence
other than content and spatial analysis (see Agutta 2013;Baird and Taylor
2011; Casella 2009) recording the discarded material culture of graffiti
production, such as aerosol cans and nozzles, stencil materials, other
implements used for making marks and other associated artefacts This study
highlights the scope for application of archaeological methodology to graffiti
analysis.

These examples barely scratch the surface of the corpus of work undertaken
byarchaeologists(see

ThemedsectionAustralianArchaeology

2014:78;Frederick 2009;Ouzman 2010;2007;2001;Schofield 2013)

38

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
This chapter presents theoretical approaches and scholarly discussion that is
pertinent to analysis of graffiti within places of institutional confinement. I use
theories outlined within this chapter and relate them to specific examples ofgraffiti at Fremantle Prison.

Landscapes and spaces of domination and resistance:
Since Jeremy Bentham's 1791 design of the panopticon (Bentham 1791;
Casella 2007; Foucault 2008) prisons and other 'total institutions' (Casella
2007; Goffman 1968) have premeditatedly used space to exert power overpeople's bodies and minds. Spatiality in archaeology considers how the
distribution of artefacts, nuances the construction of space and place.
Artefacts and place have a recursive relationship, which can change overtime (Bahn et al. 2004). The use of spatial analysis as it relates to inscription
at Fremantle prison is informed by Giddens' conceptualisation of how theconstraints imposed by physical contexts limit ‘behaviour across time andspace’ (Giddens 1985). I extend this insight into a micro-level study of how
graffiti helped individuals negotiate the architectural language and grammar
around them; setting up a series of counter dialogues and alternative
geographies.

Graffiti, place-ma®king and ocularity:(Reisner 1971) articulates one difference between public and private
messaging:39

'as the graffiti writer gets more and more into the open areas where his
chances of being seen are greater, there is a tendency for his
message to be of a generalised nature ... in lavatories, or in any place
where there is complete privacy, however, the messages although still
often banal, are much more visceral'(Reisner 1971:4). For Cresswell (1996:47) graffiti interrupts boundaries ofpublic and private; by appropriating space notions of public and private areinverted. A paradox exists in the fact that prison spaces are places ofenforced confinement, pervaded by a culture of deprivation, bodily disciplineand surveillance. Normative notions of what is 'private' and 'public' either
dissolve or are radically reconfigured.

For example within the 'quasi-private sphere' (Wilson 2008:70) of prison
cells, where inmate graffiti is prevalent, anonymity is compromised; theoccupants of each cell was known and their daily movements in and out of
the cell were regimented (Figure 3.1), scrutinised and recorded by the guards
on muster boards located outside the cells (DCS 1991a). On arrival at theprison, individual inmates were processed and issued a copy of the 'Prisoner
Information Booklet: Handbook for prisoners' (DCS 1991b). The booklet
informs prisoners of the prison rules and regulations that dictate inmate
behaviour, and inmate rights and responsibilities. Directives such as '14.3
Prisoner Movements' (DCS 1991b: 16-17) explicitly inform prisoners of theadministrative strictures governing their movements within the prison.
Postscript notes (in bold type) relating to rules on behaviour within cells andyards remind inmates that 'ALL EXCERCISE YARDS ARE OBSERVED ON

40

A CONSTANT BASIS' and 'ALL CELLS ARE INSPECTED ON A DAILYBASIS' (DCS 1991b: 3-4) thus reinforcing the idea of the omniscient guard
and the absence of inmate privacy or anonymity.

Figure 3.1 Muster board indicating cell occupantsWithin the cells, graffiti remaps spaces, as such; the contextual position ofprison graffiti dislocates established graffiti scholarship (Casella 2009). For
Fieni (2012:79) ‘graffiti creates a mobile geography’ whereby marking one's
place within a location creates a new way for that person to relate to theirenvironment. Feni's (2012) gramatological assessment of graffiti is highly
relevant to conceptualisation of graffiti as a tool of place marking/making.
However unlike Fieni's (2012) case studies of murals and written graffiti inurban France wherein both the reader and the writer’s physical and social
positions are not presupposed, inmate graffiti does not share this freedom.
Within Prisons, the opportunity for making and viewing graffiti, like the41graffitist himself is confined. Wilson (2008a:70) asserts some graffiti within
prison cells is not made for an audience. Rather the making of it functions asa mode of self-affirmation (2008a:70). Possible motivations for 'doing' graffiti
within an environment where control is sanctioned and individualism negated
may be the desire to inscribe and/or signal identity, express fears, enableprivate catharsis, or alleviate boredom.

Subverting the gaze
One example of an apparatus of 'gaze' and its subversion, are peepholes.
Peepholes or 'Judas holes' shown in Figure 3.2 are thought to have been put
in the cell doors at Fremantle Prison in 1929 (Bavin 1994:266; Bosworth
1990:28). Even though the peepholes did not allow constant surveillancebecause they are covered and require the outside observer to actively push
the cover aside and look in, their very presence would have been a perpetual
reminder to the cell occupants that they could be observed at any time
without their consent or even knowledge. Within his chapter on adaption andresistance at Fremantle Prison Megahey (2000) provides prisoner's accountsof their experiences of anxiety and of their coping strategies. One prisoner
reported: ‘The prison officers stand at the gate and they stare around. The
prisoners sit at the walls and they stare around. The guy in the tower looks
down and in your cell you look up, and there's an eye at your door'‘(Megahey
2000:123). The degree of surveillance is suggested by the 'Prison Timetable'
which concludes with instruction for guards to conduct ‘Irregular body andcell checks to be carried out by Night Officers'‘(DCS 1991a). During his time
as a prisoner, Withnell wrote ‘Even in his sleep, the checks still come...sleep42

is stretched into waking by the persistent tapping of the peep-hole, leaving
him hanging onto a half conscious realisation of his situation right through thelong early hours.’ (Withnell 1983:83) Prisoners attempted to deny the gaze ofthe guards intentionally by covering the Judas hole thus committing ‘an act of
misconduct subversive of the order and good government of the prison’(Superintendent's Register 1988) as well as unwittingly obscuring the guard's
view by moving the cell's furniture; mostly bunk beds (Megahey 2000:124).

Figure 3.2 Judas hole with cover. Semi-official inscription ‘searched 2-3-90’ is above.

The back of the cell door is the most private locale and as such is a popularlocus for the placement of subversive graffiti. Subverting the authoritative
gaze of the guard by utilising the peephole within graffiti was a popular tactic
for inmates. Palmer (1997:110) reports (in reference to the inclusion of thepeephole in graffiti) a retired prison officer from Fremantle Prison stated ‘A lot
43

of these were put on because frequently officers didn’t search the cells
properly’. Thus, they could have gone undetected and been made some time
before the prison’s closure. This is unlikely to be the case for Figure 3.5
which is done in paint provided by the prison. The location of the peepholebetween the woman’s breasts feminises the guards gaze thus disempowers
him (or her). In Figure 3.3 the peephole becomes an anus and the content ofaccompanying motifs ensure that when an eye looks in, for the inmate it‘belongs to an arsehole’. Similarly, the hidden rebellion of Figure 3.4 andFigure 3.5 would have been highly satisfying to the inmate gaze. When being
observed the prisoner is looking back at the named eye, meeting the gaze of‘a complete fuck-head’.

Figure 3.3 Site 11 motif 167.Subversion of authoritative gaze. Peephole is an anus.

44Figure 3.4 Site 10 motif 31.Subversion of authoritative gaze. Humour.

Figure 3.5 Site 3 motif 82. Subversion of the authoritative gaze. The guard’s gaze isfeminised.

45

Inscribing identity
For inmates, graffiti is a transgressive act whereby the resultant product is‘an autobiography of the self’ (Casella 2009). By leaving one's mark in theform of names, nick names and initials, individuals are announcing identity;
providing testimonial to their existence (see Abel and Buckley 1977:16).
Inscription of identity also appears as graffiti 'tags', in many cases tags aredeveloped ‘as stylised references to the personal history and extrasubcultural identity’ of the writers (Ferrell 1993:59). Tags can be a stylised
singular name of an individual graffitist or take the form of a 'throw up' which
is an ‘enlarged, two dimensional version of an individual or crew tag’ (Ferrell
1993:83). A 'crew tag' symbolises a group of graffitists with a sharedaesthetic and group identity. Both individual 'tags' and 'throw ups' arecodified, rendering the actual identity of the individual invisible except tothose within the sub-culture of the writer (see Ferrell 1993). However, not all
prison graffiti is exclusively private (Wilson 2008a:70). Graffiti may also act
as a messaging agent, asserting masculinity/femininity, ownership of space,or announcing social cultural or political affiliations, all of which are markers
of identity. This idea draws on concepts of messaging in rock art (see(McDonald 2008). ‘Rock art, by definition, is intended to modify anenvironment in place’ (Sundstrom 2012:327). Aboriginal and non-indigenous
inmates alike, have used graffiti as well as non-illicit inscription such as
murals as tools of place-making, modifying and delineating prison spaces at
Fremantle Prison and other places of institutional confinement in Australia(Wilson1 2008d:61). The role played by the inscription of space in[re]creating what Casella (2009) terms an ‘autobiography of the self’ is46

articulated by Withnell’s (1984) philosophical approach to the semiotics ofspace:

The crim ... accrues numerous trivia that reflects his image of self.
For example, he may have legal papers and files, books and press
clippings, maintaining an image of himself not as a deviate, but asjust another human being lost in the machinery of prison. Eachcrim brings his 'outside' (outside of prison, prior to conviction)
image into existence, alive in the things around his slot and hebuilds on it, becoming almost a caricature of his former self. The
slots become a regular rabbit warren, a treasure house ofcharacter types a library where the initiated eye looks for clues,
signs, as to what specialty each retains or is developing (Withnell
1984:63).

For the prison inmate, the cell is a symbol of him/herself and inscriptions ofidentity play a major role in creating and retaining self-image, which is highly
important when everything about your physical life is a reiteration of deviance(see Zamble and Porporino 1988:4-6).

Why write?: The psychology of graffiti.
Graffiti allows individuals to express their inner feelings, which is an act of
catharsis and a coping strategy for negotiating confinement (see Zamble andPorporino 1988; Kornfeld1996). Psychiatric institutions in the USA have usedgraffiti as a form of therapy, encouraged patients to express themselves by'marking' their environment (see Abel and Buckley1977: 17). They found that47

the content and style of graffiti differed between different types of mental
illness. For example manic patients showed a predilection for drawing rather
than writing and depressed patients wrote negative thoughts (Abel andBuckley1977:18) Furthermore, ‘patients who preferred not to associate withothers isolated their graffiti from the main body of inscriptions’ (Abel andBuckley1977:18). Within places of confinement graffiti may be a means tocombat boredom (see Casella 2009; Palmer 1997) and a non-violent path ofself-expression which has proved an effective tactic for copingwith theconditions of imprisonment (see Wilson 2008d:54;Johnson 2007:67).

Resistance:

Unlike the stereotypical image of resistance as a brief and violent explosionof rage preceded by long periods of passivity, everyday forms of resistancesuch as graffiti making are often the tools of a subordinate class or group ofpeople within power laden environments where, for the most part, conformity
prevails (Scott 1985:36, 37). Scott (1985: 29-37) describes such forms ofresistance as 'weapons of the weak' - everyday nigglings at theestablishment, which are persistent acts of non-compliance, rather than overt
acts of defiance performed out of desperation. The illegality of graffiti within
Fremantle Prison means that purely by making graffiti and other marks
inmates are defying authority (DCS 1991).Furthermore, the process of graffiti
removal or painting over was a disruption to the regimentation of prison life,
which was not tolerated. Such intolerance is suggested by directives forinmates to 'not become a time-waster' and to 'use the system appropriately'48

(DCS 1991:2). Thus, this kind of disruption is metaphoric 'foot dragging'which Scott identifies as a form of everyday resistance (1985:29).

On 4 January 1988 a riot, resulting in a major fire and hostage situation did
little to improve conditions for inmates (McGivern 1988). Of the sixty
recommendations within the 1988 riot enquiry report, the majority of therecommendations were accepted or already in place however, these wereprimarily concerned with staff wellbeing, security and incident management(McGivern1988: 50-65).

Those recommendations not accepted or deferred by the Department ofCorrective Services would have directly benefited inmates (McGivern1988:
50-65). Such recommendations included the installation of indoor plumbing
within the main cell block, later 'lock-up for prisoners in the height of summer
to allow cells to cool' and a formal procedure for handling grievances(McGivern1988: 50-57). The rejection or deferral of these basic amendments
to living standards based on cost and impending closure of the prison
illustrates the ineffectuality of overt resistance at Fremantle Prison and thegovernment directed predilection for hegemony over inmate wellbeing.

Making graffiti is an act of resistance that is transgressive in that it provokes
a response from the establishment, which in some instances may be theintention of the individual who is making the graffiti (see Cresswell 1996 andRose 2002). Transgression occurs where imposed boundaries are crossed,transgression generally differs to resistance, as it comes about by aparticular action being noticed, opposed to resistance which is solely reliant
on the transgressive actor's intentions (Cresswell 1996:23) However, as
49

Cresswell (1996:23) points out, identifying intentionality is problematic. For
Scott (1985:34) the success of everyday resistance relies on being 'not
noticed' that is to say, resistance is invisible to 'those who are being resisted'(see also Cresswell 1996:23). The way in which the establishment responds
to resistant actions defines those actions as deviant or as Cresswell(1996:23), drawing from classic anthropological pollution beliefs, terms them'out of place'. I propose that within the confines of Fremantle Prison, the nonsanctioned act of making graffiti is in itself transgressive, but the degree ofresistance is dependent on the intent behind the making of the marks. Morespecifically, degrees of transgression depend on the visibility of theinscription either to the individual exponent, their cellmate or to others. For
example, choosing to write or draw a hate message (especially if it isdirected toward the establishment) in a 'highly visible' locale such as Figure
3.6 where the graffitist is openly criticising the Justice of the Peace is an actof intentional resistance. Rose (2002:385) suggests Cresswell's (1996)
example of graffiti as transgressive resistance falls under the rubric of'unintentional resistance' whereby resistance is stimulated by interests anddesires exterior to issues of hegemony. This kind of unintentional resistanceis illustrated by Figure 3.7 where the individuals whose names are blacked
out are not overtly 'sticking it to the man'. The motif is in a 'hidden' locale notmeant to be seen by guards and is a humorous assertion that the two men
are in the midst of an (one would guess, a drug fuelled) 'excellent adventure',
which is a legal and moral transgression.

50

Figure 3.6 Example of intentional resistance from site 11 (motif 24).

Figure 3.7 Example of unintentional resistance from site 6 (motif 4).

Degrees of intentional, opposed to unintentional resistance via inscription
within Fremantle prison are evident in these two examples of motifs.

51

Chapter 4: Methods and Data
This chapter includes methodological approaches to: sampling strategy,
typology, dating, spatial analysis and data management.

I have approached graffiti as cultural material to be categorised, mapped,
dated and contextualised in relation to Fremantle Prison's cultural landscape.
In order to test the hypothesis that male inmates used graffiti as a means ofnegotiating and coping with confinement via expression and messaging
through textual and pictorial inscription of space, and its resultant placemaking; I have created a typology of marks with attention to their spatial
positioning. Data from field work carried out in the Women's Prison is not
used to support or disprove this hypothesis, as graffiti in places of
institutional confinement, whether in written or drawn form differs greatly inamount and content depending on the gender of the person making themarks (Yogan and Johnson:2006). Recording of graffiti and other marks in
the Women's Prison served as a trial run to test my methods and as a gauge
for determining the number of people and amount of time needed to record
within the Men's Prison. Quantitative recording of the proliferation of graffiti
within prison cells and less private spaces not only verifies the presence ofgraffiti within the prison, but indicates the degree to which inscription was
employed by inmates over time. Qualitative analysis dissects meaning andmotivation behind the act of inscription from the cultural material underinvestigation. Observing modes of inscription, implementing classification ofgraffiti typologies and identifying possible relationships between typologies
and their placement, facilitates determination of the variable ways in which52inmates used graffiti. Reading graffiti as straight text (without direct
consultation with the authors of each inscription) involves a degree ofsubjective interpretation on the part of the individual recording the inscription.
As such, employing archaeological methods as per rock art, dissuades‘clumsy cultural translation’ (McDonald 2006:70) by the collector by providing
a uniform set of techniques through which to study and contextualise graffiti
and inscription.

We know something of the people and social environment of Fremantle
Prison and other places of confinement from historic sources (see Fremantle
Prison CMP 2010; Casella 2007;DCS 1991;Gore 1990;McGivern 1988).
Thus, it is possible to apply formal approaches such as the use of semiotics,
as used in rock art analysis (e.g. McDonald 2006) to interpretation of what isessentially a site-specific assemblage of inscription that is further informed byinter-site examples from other places of confinement. The individuals who
made marks within the prison may still be alive and are most certainly part ofliving history and as such, an informed perspective is tenable via attention tosociological context and previously recorded testimonial accounts. However,
the relatively contemporary context of graffiti and other marks made atFremantle Prison means that individuals who participated in these mostly
unsanctioned acts, are at risk of loss of anonymity, embarrassment and evenpossible prosecution. Therefore, interviews with ex-inmates and wardens
were not used. A complementary anthropological approach includinginterviews and individual case studies is beyond the scope and ethicalparameters set out for this project, but may be a task for interdisciplinary
projects in the future. Correlating types of inscriptions with their degrees of53

visibility, aids determination of whether inmates were using graffiti as amessaging agent, as a means for asserting identity, to alleviate boredom, as
existential catharsis or as an act of defiance.
Trial field recording in the Women’s Prison was carried out in March 2014 aspart of an emergency intervention to record graffiti before this space wasrefurbished as a youth hostel. This type of re-use of the buildings was alsosuggested for Divisions one and two of the Main Cell Block of the Men's
Prison in the 1993 (section 8.03) report on future use for the prison, stating
that: ‘conservation policy would not be compromised by such immediate use’(Bodycoat and Stephen 1993: 90). Refurbishment of the Women's Prisonand possible future changes to the built fabric of the prison highlights theambiguous and tenuous status of this artefact class within the Prison’s
management structure.

The trial was instructive in establishing a field recording protocol. It also
exposed some recording redundancies such as including detailed recordingof unmarked spaces and indicated the amount of data management required
to adequately document graffiti in this context. The only real deficit of the
fieldwork carried out in the Women's Prison was the omission of somespaces due to limited time. However there was expedient documentation, in
the form of photographs taken of these spaces. Of the ground floor, 13 of 17
cells were recorded in detail (3 cells with commissioned murals, preserved
beneath perspex, were not recorded as well as one locked room with
exposed electrical wires). All 3 administrative spaces were recorded, as well
as 2 of 3 walkways (the walkway not recorded had already been54

renovated/restored). Both toilet cubicles and the bathroom were recorded. Of
the first floor, 3 of 12 cells were recorded in detail and context and motif
photographs taken of the remaining cells. This took two teams of two, highly
competent people as well as myself as overseer two full days to complete. All
cells were assigned site numbers in case the opportunity arose to revisit the
Women's Prison building and fully record the remaining cells. A total of 102
motifs were identified, 30 of which are in the corridor/transitional space thatprovides access from the South Western cells to the yard.

From this trial deficits of the recording process and subsequent amendments
to my approach to recording graffiti and other marks within the Men's Prison,
which is the subject of this dissertation, were as follows:My sample set did not include cells devoid of graffiti.

Photographs were uploaded and filed on-site, in order to keep track ofimage data on a site by site basis.



Site forms were amended to better suit the Men's Prison and mastersheets of photo logs filled out by myself on the completion of each site
recording.

I noted information pertaining to unrecorded cells as well as detailed
notes, maps and sketches for recorded cells in my field journal.

I took precise measurements of sightlines to accurately define thevisibility of motifs and avoid the possibility of discrepancies in55

perception of motifs being in either 'highly visible', 'hidden' or 'private'
locales.


Baseline measurements (i.e. the distance from the left hand edge ofeach panel to motif) were recorded for each motif, so that I could
check the accuracy of the 'degree of visibility' when logging data.

I did not assign site numbers to cells and other spaces that were notgoing to be recorded.

I did not do pencil rubbings of incised or scratched motifs because
experimentation with this technique in S22 (Women's prison) proved
fruitless.



In order to save time and storage space photographs were taken as
jpegs and duplicated in Raw rather than being taken in both jpeg and
Raw formats.

Furthermore, I familiarised myself with inmate cant, or 'boob talk' (Withnell
pers com 2014) in attempt to avoid misinterpretation of written motifs andsymbols and realised I would have to be aware of possible codification withinboth written and pictorial motifs, looking beyond literal meaning in inmate
graffiti text. For example, within the Women's Prison the inscription of 'Gilly
Park' (site 22 Motif 7) was initially thought to be a woman's name. However,there is no record of a 'Gillian Park' or the like in accessible DCS publications
and statistics or from the Trove online database. Informed by local
knowledge I discovered, Gilly Park is a local slang term for (thus most likely areference to) Gilbert Fraser Oval in North Fremantle.
56

Sampling
The Main Cell Block in Figure 4.1 is the central dominating feature ofFremantle Prison and its physical appearance epitomises the nature ofFremantle Prison as a place of confinement, surveillance and separation(CMP 2010:54).

N

Figure 4.1 Main cell block map. Source:

Of the 283 potential indoor 'cell' sites, 60 are very heavily marked (Mein
2012:129-140). Other indoor sites within the Main Cell Block include thewalkways or 'catwalks' of each division, the kitchen (located at the South endof Division 1) and the theatre (located at the North end of Division 4). On
thorough inspection of the cells in the Main Cell Block and accompanying
exercise yards it was clear that the initial sample size was beyond the scopeof this project, due to the number of motifs present. I needed to streamline

57

recording in order to attain a depth of meaningful data. I restricted the sample
size to cells and other sites of inscription to Division 2, see Table 4.1.

Division 2

Total numberof cells

Number of cells
containing graffiti

Number of cells
recordedFirst Floor

22

14

4

Second Floor

22

15

3

Third Floor

22

17

4

Total

66

46

11

Table 4.1 Number of cells recorded in Main Cell Block Division 2.

A third of the total number of cells (excluding the ground floor) in Division 2
have been recorded. 'Cells containing graffiti' include those with very little
graffiti, some of which comprises of random pencil marks and paint blobs,
which may not have been intentional 'mark making'. They are counted as'cells containing graffiti' as the occupants had the potential to make graffiti,
indicated by the presence of pigment, meaning these spaces are alteredalthough not inscribed upon in a meaningful way.

The first second and third floors of Division 2 contain 22 double cells whichwere converted from single cells between 1914 - 1929 (Bavin 1994:206).
Divisions 1 and 4 contain fewer cells than divisions 2 and 3. Division 2 waschosen because of its centrality within the main cell block and physicalsimilarity to Division 3, which experienced fire damage, resulting inreconstruction of the roof and possible alteration to some interior spaces.

58Moreover, Division 2 cells, on the first second and third floors shown in
Figure 4.2 are not accessible to the public and are rarely visited by staff.
Therefore, it was expected that the interior spaces of Division 2 were unlikely
to contain graffiti or other marks made by visitors to the prison and would bein a condition that best reflected the built fabric of the prison from 1970-1991.

N

D
C

First floor

F
E

Second floor

H
G

Third floor

Figure 4.2 Maps of floors 1-3 Main Cell Block. Plans Redrawn from Fremantle Prison
Conservation and Future Use: Conservation Plan (Building Management
Authority of Western Australia 1990)

59

Initially this project sought to use a 'random stratified sample' (Orton 2000) of
a minimum 30 cells as well as up to 5 communal areas (such as the exercise
yards). A random stratified sample is obtained by dividing the study area into
geographic zones and samples are selected randomly from within thesezones (Burke and Smith 2004:67). Within the Men's Prison Main Cell Block,zones are already demarcated as four 'Divisions' that have accompanying
yards (Bavin 1994:224-227). 20 cells/sites within the Women's Prison wererecorded over two days by two teams of two people with myself as overseer.
Informal investigation of the Men's Prison (main cell block) carried out by
myself (23/9/2013 - 3/10/2013) and existing documentation of prevalence ofgraffiti within cells noted by Mein (2012) indicated a far greater quantity ofgraffiti and other marks within the Men's Prison than in the Women's.
Building on Mein's (2012) work allowed me to draw upon purposive samplingchoices as well as more formal, random choices to construct a 'typicalsample' (Orton 2000:2). When choosing the cell sites, I investigated every
cell in Division 2 to ascertain whether my random choices were indeed
representative of sites of inscription within the Division. As Bellhouse(1980:123) warns, purposive selection can result in biases, which can beparticularly misrepresentative if these biases are proliferated in multiple
research projects. However, dogmatic adherence to randomisation can result
in 'important items, known to exist, being ignored' (Bellhouse 1980:123). It
was anticipated my sampling strategy would negate possible biases resulting
from 'faults in the sampling procedure' (Orton 2000:23).

Division 2 comprises 86 indoor spaces, excluding walkways and stairs. The
ground floor is made up of 20 rooms, 6 of which had been used for60

administrative purposes such as offices, store room, a barbers room and 2interior spaces for ablutions, 1 shower built in 1988 and 1 bath from1928(B.M.A. W.A.1990). Initially, such administrative spaces were going toprovide a broader context both spatially and socially for investigation of
inscription within the Main Block. However, the changing function of someground floor spaces up until 1988 and subsequent renovation andtransformation of this level to a museum space, (post 1991) meant that using
the ground floor in my sample set, would skew results in such a way as to be
misrepresentative of the landscape of Division 2 as it was from the 1970's to
the Prison's closure. As such, 4 cells from the first floor, 3 from the second
floor and 4 from the third floor were recorded in detail, providing a sample ofone sixth of the total number of cells (excluding ground floor) in Division 2.
The third floor Catwalk and 1 panel from Division 2 yard (West wall furthestfrom the main building) were recorded in order to provide additional spatial
contexts of inscription that could also contextualise cell spaces.

Recording Methods and data storage
The project database comprises primarily site record forms, sketches,
photographs and associated archival and historic documentation. The
complete data set and associated digital image suite are available on
request. They have not been included as appendices as a large number ofmotifs are accompanied by, or consist of individual signifiers of identity suchas names and nicknames belonging to living people. Therefore, making thedetails of certain graffiti public would transgress ethical parameters set forthis project. Similarly, detailed descriptions of each motif originally included in61the spreadsheets for all sites which aided data management andassessment, have been omitted from print. A reduced size, washed out
sample is provided as an example of the approach used in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Reduced size, washed out image of the first page of a completed Site RecordingForm.

The importance of formal detailed recording of motifs and inscription sites isobvious when observing the apparent absence of motifs in most archival
photographs. Data collection follows precepts of rock art recording whereby
site, context, panel, and motif photographs are taken (see McDonald 2006;
62

Taçon and Chippindale 2004). Site and motif recording in Division 2 required
two teams of two volunteers. The teams had a debriefing session outlining
safety and recording protocols for each day. 16 people including myself
worked on site over the 8 days at the prison and small inconsistencies inrecording meant all forms needed to be revised, annotated and correctedusing multiple daily checks and using site records as reference. Twocameras were used in order for the two teams to record simultaneously.
Cameras used were: Cannon EOS 350 D and Cannon EOS 550 D with 1020mm (wide angle) 18-55mm or 75-300mm lenses. Photographs were takenin JPEG and stored in RAW and JPEG formats. The recording of each spaceor site begins with photographing a 'start board' indicating orientation, sitecode and date. Individual site recording concludes with photographing an'end board'. Such information boards provide ‘a basic record of thephotographic event which can be checked against other records’ (Burke andSmith 2004:278). This conventional process proved very helpful for the
logging of images of the Women's Prison, as there is a high degree ofhomogeneity between prison spaces at a macro scale, which may be easily
confused if not documented thoroughly. Context photographs showing:
oblique from outside, face in and face out from the rear wall, views weretaken followed by photographs of all panels, as shown in Figure 4.4, Figure
4.5 and Figure 4 6.

63

Figure 4.4 Context 1 oblique from outside.

Figure 4.5 Context 2 face in.

64Figure 4 6 Context 3 face out from rear wall.

All context and panel photographs taken include scale, indicated by a 2
metre range pole marked in 20 centimetre sections to ‘provide something of
known dimensions against which the size ... can be judged’ (Burke and Smith
2004:277). Additionally, site dimensions and orientation of site features arerecorded. All motif photographs are taken with and without scale with carefulattention to the alignment of the scale image (10 cm colour-matched IFRAO
scale) either horizontally or vertically to avoid distortion (Burke and Smith
2004:277). I use primarily ‘formal’ methods (Taçon and Chippindale 2004) inthe form of standard site and motif mapping, recording, dating and analysisof styles and their distributions. Motif characteristics, condition, mode of
production and spatial visibility are recorded. (see appendix 2) Superposition65

of motifs is also noted. Where superpositioning exists, the motif numbers
above and below are recorded. (see appendix 2)

The recording process involved sketching as well as recording the details ofeach individual motif and positioning the motif number on a 'motif map' to aid
observation of spatial relationships between motifs. However, the sketches
did not need to be exactly to scale (another example of streamlining ofrecording) as the 10cm scale and colour scale provided by the IFRAO card,allowed for more detailed recording and a reliable record of motif dimensions
and colour which all recording forms were checked against and annotated.
Images were managed using i Photo and Photoshop. For some incised
motifs and motifs with heavy or superposition that is difficult to determine, Dstretch software was used (see Harman 2005). Digital image processing
allows direct comparison between similar motifs and efficient storage ofphotographic data (e.g. Clogg and Diaz-Andreu 2000:837,843). Hard copies
of recording forms and master sheets remain in my possession. Digital formsof data such as photographs and maps are stored on my primary computer,on an external hard drive and back-up copies stored on the Fremantle Prison
project research share drive at the University of Western Australia.

66

Typology of MarksClassification of motif types involves the initial identification of the motif being
either written or pictorial and the criteria specified as follows in Figure 4. 7:

WrittenMiscellaneous
Writing

Text detail

Profanity
Love message
Hate message
ThreatCathartic
Single letter
Place name

Administrative

Authored

Additional text
First name

Poem or Story(Name/Name

Initials Humorous

Tag

Date)

Misogynistic
Named Othermale

Tally Marks- female

Numbers

Full name

Geometric

Nickname

Other

Name and date

Pictorial

Icon

Date
Peace symbol- FemaleHeart
Full Name
Religious

LandscapeNickname
Dollar Sign

Figure- Male

Name and Date
Musical Notes

Figure- Female

Date
Political

Genitalia

Popular Culture

ObjectPrison Icon

Fantasy/Tattoo

Skull

Figure 4. Cartoon
7 Motif classification flow chart

Drug related
Other

67

Although this nomenclature differs slightly from previous studies of prison
graffiti such as Agutta's (2013) utilisation of Casella's (2009) thematicclassificationofprisongraffito,suchanalysis

informed

discissions

surrounding the construction of nominal categories for this project. There areclassificatory and thematic overlaps between approaches taken by Agutta(2013); Casella (2009); Yogan and Johnson (2006); Koflas and Cutshall(1985) and myself. To allow translation of my research findings into cultural
heritage management guidelines for Fremantle Prison, or be built upon byother lines of investigation, the primary classification of motif typology is astranscriptive as possible. Thus, the resultant data base, which provides amap of inscription of Division 2 graffiti, may be used in analysis of the site,
additional to my own. The primary classifications of: administrative, poem orstory, tag, tally marks, numbers, geometric, other, authored (name/namedate) and miscellaneous within the written category, and: landscape, figuremale, figure-female, genitalia, object, fantasy/tattoo, cartoon and icon within
the pictorial category provide a literal set of nominal motif types. These havebeen quantified as number of motifs. The typologies, 'miscellaneous writing'and 'icon' were expanded upon in the form of 'text detail' and 'icon type' toallow for qualitative interpretation of the motifs under analysis. Such text
details suggest the kinds of messages being transmitted and their degree ofvisibility spatially situates different modes of expression.

Love message

Klofas and Cutshall (1985:368-369) identify romantic inscriptions as asignature of 'means of coping with incarceration'. Within their analysis of68graffiti from a juvenile correctional facility (Institute for Juvenile Guidance)
Klofas and Cutshall (1985:367) found that the vast majority of graffiti thatthey classed as 'romantic' occurred on the 'front wall' (meaning the wallclosest to the hallway) which, by my criterion of space, is 'in private'. Lovemessagesin

Division2

aretypically

affirmationsofheterosexual

relationships such as 'man's name  woman's name'. There are alsomessages of support from one man to another such as 'do it easy mate'.
However, no homosexual love messages were identified.

Hate message

The use of the term 'hate messages' relates to motifs that come underCasella's (2009) rubric of 'resistance'. The only real difference here is,political statements or images are conceptualised as markers of group
identity rather than political defiance. As Wilson (2008b) clearly annunciates,
political extremist graffiti was rife within Australian prisons in the 1970s1990s and acts as an indicator of the pervading racist beliefs and attitudes ofsome 'far-right' inmates and guards. However, I theorise that in the context ofFremantle Prison this was not a signature of resistance rather anannouncement of security and power via group affiliation. Whereas, overt'hate messages' specifically target individual inmates, such as: site 6 (D61)
motif 12 ‘first name, middle name, surname dobbed me in he must and will
DIE', accompanied by site 6 (D61) motif 13 'first name, surname is a dog. He
gave me up too. He also must and will Die. A slow and painful death'. Heregraffiti is a tool of power play and resistance between inmates, asserting
dominance and forewarning potential informants or 'dogs'. The act of making

69hate messages directed at the establishment, for example: site 8 (C16) motif
44 'All judges are maggots' is in itself an act of defiance, as well as exhibiting
resistance to the prison administration. The classification of 'threats' isclosely related and in some instances intersects with 'hate messages'
however threats are more difficult to identify as they are often coded. Somemotif classification may be informed/determined by contextual elements suchas placement or other motifs, for example: site11 (E9) motif 170 'Let me in'.
The placement of this motif on the door could suggest catharsis or humour,and the utilisation of the spy hole as shown in Figure 3.3 is certainly asubversion of the guard's gaze. However, in context with the accompanying
motifs: 168 a bent over figure where the spy hole is an anus and motif 169
that is the text 'asshole', it is classified as a 'threat'.

Additional text

The term 'additional text' under 'text detail' refers to something written that is
an addition or comment on a pre-existing motif. Additional text indicates
resistance between inmates whereby one achieves status over another by‘challenging and interrupting the stories and jokes of others’ (Yogan andJohnson 2006:45). The idea of additional text as an exhibition of dominanceand power within cell spaces is supported by the proportion of additional text
in private spaces, being less than in highly visible or hidden spaces. Suchgraffiti, are meant to be seen by the cell occupants and others. This
interruption of a visual/textual statement is akin to Barthes concept of‘punctum’; the viewer (the additional graffitist) privately experiences the‘studium’ or the understanding of the intension of an image and70fundamentally changes its nature by violently wounding the original
inscription, thus adding another dimension of subjectivity (see Fried 2005
and Barthes 1981).

Although these typologies are tailored to suit graffiti at Fremantle Prison,classification of motif types and styles and their placement within a physicaland conceptual landscape is concurrent with rock art scholarship. The
presence or absence of particular motifs and the propensity for re-occurrenceof these motifs have been identified by McDonald (2000:57) to beconsequential indicators of stylistic choice.

Cathartic

Catharsis is the process of releasing, and thereby, providing relief from,strong or repressed emotions (OED 2014). Cathartic graffiti at Fremantle
Prison most commonly takes the form of poems and stories. These
existential outpourings speak of the inmate experience, from the monotony ofprison life to inhumane living conditions. Philosophical musings such as thisgraffiti from site 10 (D65) ‘Punishment or rehabilitation How can one coincidewith the other’ (Figure 4.8) are exhibited, thus shared, with others. This act ofsharing, although the question is rhetorical, is signature of cathartic ritual.

71Figure 4.8 Cathartic motif from site 10 (motif 8).

DatingExisting scholarship suggests most of the graffiti visible at Fremantle Prison
was created in the six months before the prison's closure in November 1991
(Palmer 1997). However the illicit and covert nature of most graffiti (Halsey
and Young 2002; Palmer 1997; Wilson 2008) dictates this narrow timeframeof inscription is unlikely. Palmer (1997:107) identifies the difficulty of tracing
attitudinal changes toward discipline at Fremantle prison due to the apparent
absence of dates for the graffiti. However Palmer's (1997) study was brief
and not of an archaeological nature. Archaeological approaches do not relyon the inscription of a date to determine temporality; moreover, this kind ofdating is fraught with unreliability. Archaeological practice casts a critical eye
to substantiate dates. My attempts to test this at Fremantle prison throughfirst-hand field observation and recording were problematic as there are no72

records of when the cell walls were painted thus determining exact dates via
the presence of motifs below the paint layers within the cells is untenable. An
exception takes the form of incised and scratched dates from the 1980's
beneath the paint layer that was the surface for the S12 (yard) panel mural
done in 1991. Although inscribed dates do not provide a wholly reliable
dating method, this example of superposition wherein graffiti exists beneaththe 1991 paint layer indicates graffiti was being made before 1991.

Obtaining direct dates by applying chronometric techniques (see Holdaway
2006) is not feasible when dealing with an artefact class produced within (atmost) the past 40 years. The common practice of repainting cells makes thediscovery of graffiti older than 40 years, unlikely. It may be possible tochemically analyse graffiti pigments, particularly permanent markers, and test
the possible differential weathering and patination rates between them todetermine a chronology for motifs. Unfortunately, this kind of experimentalarchaeology is beyond the scope of this project. A relative chronology
informed by ‘portrayal of dateable subject matter’ (McDonald 2006:78) isappropriate here, as the usual inherent dangers of using informed methods
such as ethnographic analogy are minimised by the fact that the culturalcontext of the graffiti's production is known. Furthermore, when we are awareof possible cultural premises that may have influenced the production of animage, formal approaches to analogy such as the use of semiotics(McDonald 2006:70) are also possible. An example that fits both thesecriterion is Motif 62 (site 11) 'A drop of poison' which is a written motif done in
the style of the cover art of the band 'Poison' who were popular from the mid
to late 1980's (allmusic.com) thus the motif must be dated between 1984 and73

1991. One reliably dateable inscription exists in the form of newspaper
clippings of cars on panel 4, site 11(motif 152). One of the clippings has thesale description and photograph of a 1989 Mazda Mx6 Coupe 4w steer withthe price '$24,900'. The EGC price (manufacturer recommended price) for
this model, new, was $35,385 (Redbook car sales 2014). The age and priceof the car indicates that the pictures were put up in the cell, not only post
1989 but that the car advertised was second hand as it had depreciated byapproximately $1500 thus the pictures were most likely put on the wall
between 1990-91.

There is a lot of fading that may aid the dating of motifs in this cell.
Superimposition of motifs with dates below other motifs suggest the motif
above was created after the date written for example in site 11 motif 43 (brickwall motif) is the layer above motif 137 which reads ‘Marshy was ere 91’.
However, the inscription of a date is not a suitably reliable dating method on
it’s own.
An example of an inscribed date is from site 6 (D61) motif 9 ‘Full Name date(1990) from N.S.W. 5 years in this hell hole’. An example of the potential for
inscribed dates to be misleading is from site 7 (F67) motif 22 ‘First namesurname 5 years 91-94’.

74

Spatial Analysis
Spatial analysis is applied to the prison with attention to interior spaces (seeBavin 1994) quantifying the spatial distribution of inscriptions. Application of
spatial analysis to inscription within cellular and congregate spaces at
Fremantle Prison is primarily concerned with ‘relationship between spaceand people’ following previous studies (Bavin 1994:151) of places ofconfinement. ‘Dimensional analysis of variance’ as applied to spatiality at
Fremantle Prison by Bavin (1994:152) aids explication of patterns ofassociation indicated by the spatial organisation of graffiti and other marks(see Schiffer 1974:491). Unlike Whallon's application of dimensional
analysis, which Schiffer (1974:492) critiques as not providing justification for‘paths taken’, my application of this approach is operating on the hypothesis
that: a correlation between motif and graffiti types and their placement ineither highly visible, private or hidden spaces is observable. Spatial analysis
as it relates to stylistic typologies of motifs is concurrent with rock art analysis
whereby styles may occur in ‘more than one kind of physical location’(Sundstrom 2012:327) but are also relative to hidden or open visibility within
the landscape (Sundstrom 2012:327).

My assessment of the site in February and March 2014 illuminated the needfor archaeological examination of graffiti and other inscription to understandtheir temporality, meaning and management. I follow a hybrid combination ofRock Art plus Historical Archaeology methodology. Each prison space isconceptualised as a 'site' within the broader geography of the prison culturallandscape. Within each site, inscription surfaces are assigned panel

75

numbers, and graffiti and other inscriptions recorded as motifs. Panels aredefined by the physicality of the sites. Each wall, floor and ceiling surface isconceptualised as a panel. The walls are numbered one to four, panel
number one being the wall directly to the left as you enter the cell.
Numeration of the wall panels continues in a clockwise direction, thus,
whether the cell is on the Eastern or Western side of the main cell block,panel four is always the wall containing the doors and door recesses. This isimportant because panel four, (particularly the recesses and backs of doors)is the primary local of 'private' inscription, in that it is not visible when looking
through the spy-hole or doorway. The floor and ceiling spaces sharesightlines of visibility as shown in Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10. Motifs
locations, whether on the floor, ceiling, windows, doors or walls are mapped.
Dimensions of motifs are recorded and the degree of visibility noted to inform
spatial analysis. Unlike theoretical approaches to viewscapes often applied toarchaeological sites (e.g.Owoc 2006; Holmberg et al 2006) for this project,‘seeing’ is literal.

Within the cells, the spatial position of motifs is recorded in terms of degrees
of visibility when looking from the open door and through the peephole. The
classification of motifs as either ‘highly visible’, ‘hidden’ or ‘private’ isdetermined as per, the gaze of the guards. Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10
represent a bird’s eye view of a typical prison cell. Dimensions of the cells
were measured and found to be uniform in size. Sightlines were created bymeasuring the broadest fields of view from the doorway with the door open,
shown in Figure 4.10 and with the door closed (looking through thepeephole) shown in Figure 4.9. The sightlines were measured using a laser76pointer and checked by having two people of varying heights ‘look in’ as if
they were a guard, not stepping over the wooden threshold or leaning into
the cell. When looking through the peephole it is possible to cast one’s gazeside to side. This field of view is labelled as ‘spyhole scanning’ in Figure 4.9
and illustrates the space within the cell that is ‘highly visible’ to the guard’seye. In Figure 4.10 ‘visible spyhole’ represents the visibility of the cell interior
when looking straight ahead through the peephole. In both Figure 4.9 and
Figure 4.10 the space within the cell that is ‘hidden’ from the gaze of theguard is shown in black. When the door is open, as illustrated in Figure 4.10
54.5cm more of the wall directly to the left of the door (panel 1) is highly
visible and visibility of the opposite wall (panel 3) is the same. As such thesightlines in Figure 4.10 represent the measurements of visibility as
discussed within this dissertation. The space in the cell shown as ‘private’ inFigure 4.10 is all of panel 4 (floor to ceiling) and the area to the left of thedoorway fully obscured by the open door. Documentary footage from 1993shows an ex-inmate and artist indicating the panel 4 corner furthest from thedoor as the most private space to start drawing saying ‘I started it [large
tattoo style dragon painting] over there so I couldn’t be seen’ (Isaac 1993).
Visibility of the ceiling and floor areas corresponds with the sightlines
showing visibility of the walls except for the edge of the rectangular light
fixture that is furthest from the door.

77

Figure 4.9 Degrees of visibility looking into a cell through the peephole. (birds-eye view)

Figure 4.10 Degrees of visibility looking into a cell from the doorway (birds-eye view).

78

It is important to reiterate the point that prison cells are a quasi-private
environment, which may be intruded upon at any time. Highly visible space
may be viewed easily by guards and occasionally by other inmates walking
past the open door. Private space is only viewed by the inhabitants of a cell.
Hidden space has liminal qualities; although these areas are not easily seen
during nightly checks through the peephole, or on opening of the cell door, it
would only take the guard to take one step into the cell, to make these‘hidden’ spaces highly visible. Alternatively a guard would only see theprivate spaces when carrying out a thorough cell-check or if they stepped
into the cell and turned around to face panel 4, which they did not do unlessthere were no inmates in the cell.

Historical Sources
Unlike written accounts within historical sources and anthropological enquiry
via ethnography, archaeological investigation employs methods resistant tobiases inherent in studies reliant on information gleaned from sources withvested interests. Archaeology looks to material culture to provide information
on elements of lifeways, such as diet, which may be invisible within thehistorical record. Thus, archaeological studies can supplement and enhancehistorical accounts of places and people associated with those places. This iscertainly the situation at Fannie Bay Gaol in Darwin which, like Fremantle
Prison is open to the public as a heritage site and museum. Dewar andFredericksen's (2003:63) assessment of archaeological input into the site'sfunction as a museum contended that ‘while the records illustrate theinstitutional history, the archaeological evidence reveals the social.’

79

Furthermore, previously unknown aspects of people’s lives (especially those
who were voiceless or marginalised) may be unearthed via archaeologicalinvestigation, as was the case in Casella's (2001) analysis of artefacts from
Ross female factory in Tasmania.

Amongst others, biases include a preference for morbid one sided accounts
of inmate's character in the name of 'dark tourism' (Wilson 2008:104). Kumar(2009) argues that 'Convict Heritage Tourism' (Kumar 2009:212) at
Fremantle prison should not be considered 'Dark Tourism' as it 'has to beappreciated that the life of the commoner has been showcased as a tourism
product.' (Kumar 2009:212) Despite Kumar's (2009) attention to the fact thatthe history of Fremantle Prison, as presented to suit the tourist gaze, may behistorically inauthentic, he fails to acknowledge that the prison's history also
includes the history of individuals within living memory.

Informed methods (Taçon and Chippindale 2004) in the form of archival
sources, historic accounts, published interviews and utilisation of sociologicalknowledge is applied. Inclusion of such sources in concert with durable
archaeological data allows objective investigation of the functions of graffiti
and inscription at the prison. 'Informed’ methods are in the minority: relating
to public domain information on the experiences of people connected toFremantle Prison.

80

Chapter 5: Results
This chapter presents results from data collated from appendix 1 in the formof graphs and descriptions of sites 1-12, with attention to the visibility of
motifs being either, highly visible, hidden or private.

The landscape of inscription
The site numbers were ascribed in order of recording. All site codes arepreceded by 'FP MB' (Fremantle Prison Main Block). Additions to the sitecode e.g. H63 indicate the numeration used by the prison for the cells
indicated on division maps Table 5.1. The random stratified sample of cells
yielded no pattern of inscription in relation to the cell location other than thatboth S11 and S4 (which have the highest number of motifs) are both locatedon the Western side of the Main cell Block which has better natural light.

Site
Code
NumberofMotifs
Floor

S1
H63

S2
H60

S3
H59

S4
G15

S5
F60

S6
D61

S7
F67

S8
C16

S9
C17

S10
D65

S11
E9

S12
yard

39

35

83

127

25

48

22

85

15

44

184

66

3rd

3rd

3rd

3rd

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

1st

1st

2nd

groundTable 5.1 Location of sites and number of motifs

The following breakdown of nominal variables, as they relate to placement in'highly visible', 'hidden' or 'private' locales, only concerns the cell spaces.
Graphs illustrating results for all pictorial and written motifs within the cells(sites 1-11) are presented first, followed by individual cell/site results. Somemotifs are made up of composite parts that are both pictorial and written or81fulfil two or more criteria thus, the ‘icon type’ and ‘text detail’ areextrapolations from the pictorial and written counts. Graphs showing icon
type are only provided for sites wherein a variety of icon types are present
Results pertaining to site 12 Division 2 yard are not included in these results.
The yard is a congregate area where the potential for 'being seen' is high,thus, presented separately.

Total number of motifs recorded (interior of cells) = 707

The number of motifs for sites 1-11 as presented in appendix 2, add up to
709 motifs because motif number 25 in site 11 and motif number 11 in site 4
are single motifs made up of two parts (i.e. part a and b) recorded separately.

The following results present the number of pictorial and written motifs.

Visibility vs pictorial

Of the 29 cartoon drawings, many are of characters from well-known comics
such as Donald Duck and Garfield these are generally quite large,
inoffensive and at times humorous. Of the drawings depicting people, only
female figures are placed in 'private' locals suggesting separate meaning andfunction behind the inscription of male and female figure motifs, as shown in
Figure 5.1. The icon typology predominates. Icon types recorded are: peace
symbol, heart, religious, dollar sign, musical notes, smiley face, prison icon
(e.g. prison bars, prison key) skull, popular culture (e.g. music and television
icons), political (e.g. aboriginal flag, swastika) and drug related. The
predominant icon type is 'hearts'. These vary in size and are located in 'highly82visible’, ‘hidden' and 'private' spaces within the cells. Of the 31 heart motifs
17 are 'highly visible', 4 are 'hidden and 10 are 'private.

The 'other' category for motif types consist of miscellaneous scribbles,
random paint marks and indeterminate shapes. These are present in all cells
and all three delineations of visibility. Of the 14 landscape motifs only 1 is ina private locale opposed to 7 in highly visible and 6 in hidden locales. The
landscape motifs are disproportionately larger in size compared to otherpictorial and written motifs (see appendix 2, area in sq. cm) and half of thelandscape motifs are done in paint. (Figure 5.1)

Figure 5.1 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility of pictorial motifs

83Visibility vs written

The visibility of written motifs under the categories administrative, authored,
geometric, miscellaneous writing, numbers, poem/story, tag, tally marks andother are is shown in Figure 5.2

The single administrative mark is motif 107 in site 4 (G15). Authored motifs
include pictorial and written motifs that are accompanied by a name(nicknames included) as well as motifs solely comprised of a name or aname and date. Of the 101 authored motifs 73 are 'private' and 'hidden'.
'named others' are not included in the 'authored' count, these come under the
miscellaneous writing, heading and are bound within 'love' and 'hate'messages. Numbers include maths equations, measurements, phone
numbers and miscellaneous single numbers but not dates. Motifs within the'other' category are mostly those that are indeterminate. Poem/story motifs
make up a large proportion of the 'cathartic' motifs shown in the following
graph. The 'tags' are almost all in site 4 (G15) on every wall panel, thus thespatial positioning of these motifs is not representative of a preference for theplacement of these motifs. Of the 9 tally mark motifs, those done in 'private'
are all in pencil and those in highly visible space are all scratched or incised.

Visibility vs text detail
The categories within ‘text detail’ shown in Figure 5. 3 are a qualitative
breakdown of the ‘miscellaneous’ and ‘poem or story’ categories, as
described in chapter 4 and shown in Figure 5.2. 35 of the cathartic motifs
are poems or stories, 15 comprise of a name or date and the remainder are84

other written expressions of catharsis. There are only 2 examples ofadditional text in private locales within all the cells. Throughout sites 1-11
‘hate messages’ occur in all three delineations of space, whereas the numberof ‘threat’ and ‘profanity’ motifs in highly visible locales is significantly lessthan in hidden or private, and misogynistic motifs only occur in private spacewithin the cells. Of the 22 ‘love messages’ only 5 are in private locales. Only
6 ‘humorous’ motifs are highly visible opposed to the 13 in hidden space and
16 in private (Figure 5. 3).

Figure 5.2 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility of written motifs.

85

Figure 5. 3 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility of motif text details.

Visibility vs text detail (average size)

To some degree the size of motifs and their visibility in Figure 5.4 mirror thenumber of motifs as they appear in highly visible, hidden and private locales.
Additional text motifs in highly visible space are considerably larger thanthose that are private or hidden. Cathartic motifs that are highly visible andhidden are considerably larger than those in private space. Although there
are less hate messages in private space than in hidden or highly visible
locales these private hate messages are larger than their counterparts.
Similarly, although private space is the primary locale for humorous motifs,
the humorous motifs in hidden locales are disproportionately large.

86

Figure 5.4 All cells (sites 1-11) visibility and size of motifs.

87

The sites
Site 1
Third Floor (Eastern side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S1 (H63)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. No visible motifs exist on
the floor or ceiling panels. Of the 38 motifs 2 are on panel 1 (North), 6 onpanel 2 (East), 17 on panel 3 (South) and 13 on panel 4 (West).10 of the
motifs are scratched into or drawn on toothpaste splodges which are around
3.5 cm sq. in size and in highly visible locales.

Visibility vs Pictorial site 1

The only pictorial motifs in this cell are 6 hearts (5 highly visible and one
private) and 4 ‘other’ marks which are: a roughly drawn circle in the hidden
portion of panel 3, vertical brush strokes covering the back of the door andextending to the door recess and a feint paint splatter on panel 4.

Visibility vs written site 1

Of the site 1 written motifs, 4 are in private space within the cell whilst 9 are
in hidden and18 are in highly visible locals. The authored motifs include 2
named others (female) 4 initials 2 full name and date and 1 nickname. The
tag motif shown in Figure 5. 6 is the same as one of the ‘initials’ motifs but isdone in a tag style. The highly visible motif within the ‘other’ category in
Figure 5.5 is not specifically a motif, rather, a remnant of printed text left
behind on the toothpaste which was used as adhesive. The tally marks are
88all scratched or incised. Love messages are predominant in this cell and thesingle letters represented in Figure 5.5 and one of the initials match the first
letters of the named women. (Figure 5. 6)

Figure 5.5 Site 1(H63) visibility of written motifs.

89

Figure 5. 6 Site 1(H63) visibility of written motifs (text detail).

Site 2
Third Floor (Eastern side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S2 (H60)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 35 motifs 3 are on
panel 1 (North), 4 on panel 2 (East), 11 on panel 3 (South) and 16 on panel 4(West). There is 1 motif on panel 5 (ceiling) on the light fixture. There is one
motif on panel 5 (ceiling) on the light fixture.

90

Visibility vs Pictorial site 2

Of the 2 icons 1 is religious (hidden) one is a heart (private).

Figure 5.7 Site 2 (H60) visibility of pictorial motifs.

Visibility vs written site 291

Figure 5.8 Site 2 (H60) visibility of written motifs.

Site 3
Third Floor (Eastern side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S3 (H69)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 84 motifs 19 areon panel 1 (North), 11 on panel 2 (East), 17 on panel 3 (South) and 35 on
panel 4 (West). There are two motifs on panel 5 (ceiling) one is on a light
fixture.

Visibility vs Pictorial site 3

92

Of the icons 1 is a dollar sign (highly visible) 2 are hearts (1 highly visible 1
hidden) 3 are peace symbols (2 hidden 1highly visible) one is political (highly
visible) and 5 are popular culture (3 hidden 2 highly visible).

Figure 5.9 Site 3 (H59) visibility of pictorial motifs.

Visibility vs written site 3
93

Figure 5.10 Site 3 (H59) visibility of written motifs.

Figure 5.11 Site 3 (H59) visibility of written motifs (text detail).

94

Site 4
Third Floor (Western side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S4 (G15)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 127 motifs 34 areon panel 1 (South), 10 on panel 2 (West), 24 on panel 3 (North) and 58 on
panel 4 (East). There is 1 motif on panel 5 (ceiling) on the light fixture.

Visibility vs Pictorial site 4

Of the icons 1 is a prison icon (highly visible) 1 is a heart (private). There isalso a dollar sign which makes up the ‘s’ in the tag ‘Dollar$’.

Figure 5.12 Site 4 (G15) visibility of pictorial motifs.

Visibility vs Written site 495

Figure 5.13 Site 4 (G15) visibility of written motifs.

Figure 5.14 Site 4 (G15) visibility of written motifs (text detail).

96

Site 5
Second Floor (Eastern side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S5 (F60)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 25 motifs 3 are on
panel 1 (North), 5 on panel 2 (East), 4 on panel 3 (South) and 12 on panel 4(West). There is 1 motif on panel 5 (ceiling) on the light fixture.

Visibility vs pictorial site 5

Of the icons 1 is a dollar sign (highly visible) 1 is a prison icon and 1is a skull.

Figure 5.15 Site 5 (F60) visibility of pictorial motifs.

97

Visibility vs written site 5

Of the 8 motifs recorded as miscellaneous writing 1 is cathartic (private) 1 ishumorous (private) and 1 is a place name. The other 5 do not fit into the text
detail criteria.

Figure 5.16 Site 5 (F60) visibility of written motifs.

Site 6First Floor (Eastern side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S6 (D61)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 48 motifs 8 are on
panel 1 (North), 16 on panel 2 (East), 12 on panel 3 (South) and 10 on panel
4 (West). There are 2 motifs on panel 5 (ceiling) 1 is on the light fixture.

98

Visibility vs pictorial site 6

At this site highly visible pictorial motif predominate for all pictorialclassifications and icon types as shown in Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.18.

Figure 5.17 Site 6 visibility of pictorial motifs.

99

Figure 5.18 Site 6 visibility of icon types.

Visibility vs written site 6

Figure 5.19 Site 6 visibility of written motifs.

100

Figure 5 20 Site 6 visibility of written motifs (text detail).

Site 7
Second Floor (Eastern side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S7 (F67)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 19 motifs 4 are on
panel 1 (North), 4 on panel 2 (East), 3 on panel 3 (South) and 11 on panel 4(West). There is 1 motif on panel 5 (ceiling) on the light fixture.

Visibility vs pictorial site 7

Of the 4 icon motifs 2 are popular culture (1highly visible 1 hidden) and 2 arehearts (private).

101

Figure 5.21 Site 7 visibility of pictorial motifs.

Visibility vs written site 7

All written motifs within this cell are names or names and dates, (6 are highly
visible and 2 hidden).

Site 8First Floor (Western side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S8 (C16)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 85 motifs 19 areon panel 1 (South), 19 on panel 2 (West), 13 on panel 3 (North) and 33 on
panel 4 (East). There is 1 motif on panel 5 (ceiling).

102

Visibility vs pictorial site 8

Figure 5.22 Site 8 visibility of pictorial motifs.

Figure 5.23 Site 8 visibility of pictorial motifs (icon type).

103

Visibility vs written site 8

Figure 5.24 Site 8 visibility of written motifs.

Figure 5.25 Site 8 visibility of written motifs (text detail).

104

Site 9First Floor (Western side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S9 (C17)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 15 motifs 2 are on
panel 1 (South), 4 on panel 2 (West), 1 on panel 3 (North) and 3 on panel 4(East). There are 5 motifs on panel 5 (ceiling) 3 of which are on the light
fixture.

Visibility vs pictorial site 9

There are 5 pictorial motifs in this cell. 1 cartoon with text (highly visible) and1 icon (highly visible) which is an arrow pointing upwards (in context with thelocation of the bunk bed) that accompanies the text ‘sleep here forever’. The
other 3 pictorial motifs are 1 solid blob of pigment (highly visible), possibly
obscuring something beneath and 2 groups of approximately 8 lines eitherside of the light fixture (1 highly visible 1 private) which create a blacked out
section of the light fixture.

105

Visibility vs written site 9

Figure 5.26 Site 9 visibility of written motifs.

Figure 5.27 Site 9 visibility of written motifs (text detail).

106

Site 10First Floor (Eastern side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S10 (D65)

All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 44 motifs 6 are on
panel 1 (North), 4 on panel 2 (East), 11 on panel 3 (South) and 21 on panel 4(West). There are 2 motifs on panel 5 (ceiling) 1 of which is on the light
fixture.

Visibility vs pictorial site 10
Of the 3 icon motifs, 1 is a heart which is the head of one of the ‘figure-male’motif, 1 is a prison icon, and 1 is a pair of arrows pointing at the spyhole (seeFigure 3.4). One of the male figures is motif 3, the faded motif shown infigure 1.5. The ‘other’ motifs are squiggly lines except motif 24 which is ahand stencil of a left hand with initials and date ‘91’.

Visibility vs written site 10

The only written motifs that are not poems or stories or miscellaneous writing(shown in fig 5.29) are two geometric motifs one of which is on the light
fixture and 6 authored motifs which all have different names. Of these names
4 are private 12 are hidden and the 3 that are dated are in private locals. All
23 poem or story motifs are cathartic.

107

Figure 5.28 Site 10 visibility of pictorial motifs.

.

Figure 5.29 Site 10 visibility of written motifs (text detail).

108

Site 11First Floor (Western side of the Main Cell Block)Site Code-FP MB S11 (E9)All four wall-panels in this cell have graffiti on them. Of the 185 motifs 43 areon panel 1 (South), 25 on panel 2 (West), 29 on panel 3 (North) and 87 on
panel 4 (East). Motif 43 is a depiction of brickwork which covers all 4 walls.

Visibility vs pictorial site 11

Figure 5.29 Site 11 visibility of pictorial motifs.

109

Figure 5.30 Site 11 visibility of pictorial motifs (icon type).

Figure 5.31 Site 11 visibility of written motifs.

110

Figure 5.32 Site 11 visibility of motifs (text detail)

Site 12Ground level

Site Code FP MB S12 (Yard)

Graffiti recorded from Site 12 yard consists of 66 motifs from 1 panel locatedon the rear wall of Division 2 yard in the north east corner. All motifs are in ahighly visible locale. 7 motifs are drawn, these are all done in permanentmarker. 2 motifs are painted. One is motif 1 which is the remaining pigmentof a landscape done in the ‘Carrollup style’ which (in 1991) covered thewhole panel but is now heavily weathered. The other is motif 54, which ispainted writing: the text is ‘Black Power’.

111

Figure 5.33 Site 12 superposition of motifs

Figure 5. 35 Site 12 technique and classification of motifs.

112

Chapter 6: Discussion
This chapter discusses how graffiti reflects coping strategies employed byinmates as a means of negotiating the stresses imposed by physical andsocial confinement at Fremantle Prison. Pictorial and written graffiti is both anindicator of coping strategies and a means for coping in itself. The following
discussion considers particular typologies and archaeological signatures that
support my assertion that making graffiti re-maps the prison’s public andprivate spaces.

Why was graffiti permitted in 1991?
The 'appearance of inflammatory written material' is one of twelve indicatorsof 'general signs of tension amongst prisoners' put forward by The National
Institute of Corrections within their 'Containment of Prison Violence' training
which suggests that recognition of such indicators may 'reduce the likelihoodof prison riots' (Gore 1990:19). One of the four recommendations/follow up
actions (in response to the 1988 riot at Fremantle Prison) within the Review
of Reports on Major Prison incidents, directed to the Minister for corrective
services suggested was 'systematic intelligence gathering to give warning ofdeveloping situations.' (Gore 1990:40) In light of this, perhaps graffiti making
within Fremantle Prison was partially allowed as a further tactic forsurveillance, not just to placate inmates before relocation to Casuarina andCanning Vale Prisons.

113

Pictorial motifs
Cartoon motifs
The choice to place cartoon drawings on 'highly visible' and 'hidden' wallspaces as indicated in Figure 5.1 may be due to the inoffensive nature ofthese motifs (thus they can afford to be seen) or because they tend to bequite large; just a practical use of space. The spatial positioning of cartoon
motifs in predominantly 'highly visible' and 'hidden' locals suggest these wereintended to be viewed by the graffitist, their cell mate and others. The highly
visible cartoon motifs in site 3 (see Figure 5.9) are both coloured drawings ofGarfield. Numerous other drawings of Garfield throughout the prison,
supports the idea that the graffitists may have replicated these characters
because they were able to copy the drawings from a book from the prison
library. This is of course just speculation.

Male and female figures
The function of drawn male and female figures differs and this is represented
in the differing locations of these motifs. There are two complementaryreasons for the placement of female figure motifs in private locals where,
consequentially, male figure motifs are absent. (Figure 5.1) Firstly, depictionsof women that are sexually graphic, like the written misogynistic, profanity
and threat motifs, (Figure 5. 3) were more likely to evoke the displeasure of
guards than other content. Secondly, erotic motifs are more likely to havebeen made and viewed 'in private'.

114

Other marks
Random marks within the 'other' category may have been made by accident
or purely out of boredom and are present in highly visible, hidden and private
space. (Figure 5.1) These marks are in all three areas of visibility in site 2(Figure 5.7) site 3 (Figure 5.9) site 5 (Figure 5.15) site 6 (Figure 5.17) site 7(Figure 5.21) site 8 (Figure 5.22) and site 11 (Figure ) . ‘Other ‘ marks arealso present in highly visible and private in site 4 (Figure 5.12) and highly
visible and hidden in site 10 (Figure 5.28).

Icons
The visibility of icon types, mirror the written motifs in terms of placement andfunction. Like the love messages, heart icons are predominantly in highly
visible space (Figure 5.1) Moreover, like place name motifs (Figure 5.4,
Figure 5. 6, Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.14) religious icons are in highly visible
and hidden locales (Figure 5.18 and Figure ) and act as signifiers ofindividual and group identity. Symbols function as a communicative link to
the unknown by means of the known (see Preucel 2006). However, inmate
language, be it physical, spoken or written is codified. Attributing meaning tosymbols is of course, bound by context and the social context of institutional
confinement has a rich semiotic vocabulary that may be so exclusive that, insome instances, meaning is only clear to the intended reader. For example
the diamond motif Figure 6.1 may be a reference to ‘Koont’ a card gameplayed by Indigenous inmates where the coloured cards are removed, andthe aim is to score 10 or a ‘koont’. This game is accompanied by signals
using finger movements and hand gestures that indicate scoring. These

115

gestures were also used outside of the game to communicate non-verbally(see Withnell 1984:78). It is impossible to determine whether this motif isladen with meaning or not. Within this dissertation I have not inferredmeaning by critiquing artworks. Whilst the image of Ned Kelly Figure 6.2 isdefinitely a prison icon and a nationalistic symbol of convict heritage andrebellion, the placement of his hands behind his back is not interpreted as aconscious representation of the subjugated man, although this is quitepossible. It is just as likely that the positioning of the arms was a practicalchoice by the graffitist, because hands are hard to draw. Alternatively, The
motif "Rock in freo 91" Figure 6.3 is probably not a reference to music or‘rocking out in Fremantle’, but a coded reference to heroin, as it is placed in a
private locale and is in association with a big hypodermic needle motif.

Figure 6.1 Highly visible geometric/icon motif site 11 motif 73. Meaning unknown.

116

Figure 6.2 Highly visible prison icon/male figure, site 11 motif 76.

Figure 6.3 Drug related motifs (private locale) in site 11. Motif 64 is text motif 65 is contextual
syringe.

117

Drug related icons
For some inmates at Fremantle Prison illicit drug use and gambling weretactics for coping with imprisonment (Megahey 200:125). Drugs became
increasingly available to inmates from the 1970’s onward (McGivern 1988)
and drug use is represented by graffiti depicting various drug references andparaphernalia. Drugs were moved around the prison either inside tennis balls
or in a toilet roll put inside a sock, so like the tennis balls, it could be thrownover the high walls that separate division yards (DCS 1991c).The illegal
nature of drug use is reflected in the placement of drug related motifs inhidden and private space within the cells. These motifs are represented by
the typological heading of ‘icon type’. Within site 6 there are 6 drug related
motifs, shown in figure 5.18. Of these, the 2 that are highly visible depict
psychotropic mushrooms which do not have the same overtly illicit
iconography as syringes and marijuana leaf depicted in the hidden andprivate space within the cell such as those shown in Figure 6.4. The clusterof mushrooms in this private locale are clearly labelled as being ‘magic’ andneed to be out of sight. In the top left of Figure 6.4, a further drug related
motif is visible it reads ‘power to the poppy’ which is a reference to heroin but
was not recorded as a drug related motif due to a fault in the recording
process. The one drug related motif in site 8 despite being hidden (Figure5.23) is incomplete and only barely distinguishable as a smoking implement
due to superposition of other marks. Site 11 has 2 drug related motifs,1 ismotif 65 partially pictured in Figure 6.3 the other is 1 hidden motif depicting awater ‘bong’ for smoking marijuana, with the text ‘bong on cuntox’. The

118

addition of ‘ox’ as a suffix to adjectives is particular to 1980’s urban youth
culture in Western Australia.

Figure 6.4 A cocktail of private drug motifs.

119

Written motifs
Administrative
Administrative marks are not a feature of the cell interiors, however, assuggested by the single administrative motif from Site 4 (Figure 5.13) thiskind of inscription is likely to have been in the form of documents and notes
supplied by the prison administration. The administrative mark is the remnantof an A4 piece of paper (indicated by the spacing of the toothpaste blobs that
acted as an adhesive) with a small amount of typed text remaining, whichreads 'will lose ...6 for a ...ich time ... be no ... four w... Water... or ta'. It is notclear which administrative document this came from and the typeset andpaper quality differs from that of the archived materials.

Authored motifs
It is not surprising that authored motifs are mostly in 'private' and 'hidden'
locales (figure 5.2) sites as these are automatically identifying personhood,are markers of self and identity and as such, are made for the benefit of thecell occupants, not for the gaze of the guards. Writing one’s name is anownership of space and reiteration of personhood. Sites 7 and 10 are theonly cells without authored motifs. Figure 5.5, Figure 5.8, Figure 5.10, Figure
5.13, Figure 5.16, Figure 5.19, Figure 5.24, Figure 5.26 and Figure show thevisibility of authored motifs in individual sites.

Cathartic motifs‘Cathartic’ motifs can be poems or stories and authored motifs, and also
specify miscellaneous writings such as S1 (H63) motif 9 ‘I’m bored I wish I
had a telly’ or the numerous examples of ‘fuck the world’ or ‘FTW’ in many120

cells. Authored motifs that are cathartic may be as simple as a name with thedates of the individual’s sentence e.g. site 3(H59) motif 53 ‘first namesurname 12 months 91’. Here the inmate is naming himself and expressing
his ‘time served’ thus owning and announcing the hardship experienced.
Catharsis

isexperienced

andgainedwithanaudienceandthedisproportionately large number of highly visible cathartic poems, stories andstatements as well as a large number of hidden and private cathartic motifs(Figure 5. 3) suggests inmates were signalling to the guards and otherinmates as a way of coping with their fear and despair. Site 10 (D65) has 23
cathartic motifs that are in the form of poems and stories, (Figure 5.) some ofwhich are not messaging to guards or fellow inmates, but an imagined
reader, a tourist perhaps, to whom the author is reporting the inmate
experience and their feeling toward the ineffectuality of incarceration. Motifs
such as these (Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6) suggest inmates were aware of theimpending closure of the prison and speculated that their experience, as
inscribed within their cell, might be witnessed by those on the ‘outside’. The
rhetorical nature of the graffiti shown in Figure 6.6 typifies cathartic
expression in that it is inviting the reader to engage in the cathartic
experience.

121

Figure 6.5 Cathartic message intended for outsider gaze. Site 10 motif 17 (hidden).

Figure 6.6 Cathartic message intended for outsider gaze. Site 10 motif 12(highly visible).

Additional text
‘Additional text’ motifs are predominantly in highly visible and hidden spaces
within the cells (figure 5.3) because they are meant to be seen. Figuresindicating highly visible and hidden additional text in sites 3, 4, 8 and 11 areshown in figures 5.11, 5.14, 5.25, and 5.13. These motifs are not secretmessages or self-affirmation, but exertions of power by one inmate overanother. For example,

122

Figure 6.7 Site 11 highly visible motifs,
cathartic motif (motif 19) withadditional text (motif 20).

Figure 6.7 the cathartic motif ‘Help I need it!,’ is punctuated by the additional
text, motif ‘Fuck you wanker breathe’. Here the additional graffitist has added
an arrow pointing to the original inscription, leaving no doubt that theadditional text is in response to ‘Help I need it!’. ‘Fuck you wanker breathe’(this is probably meant to be breath) not only refuses catharsis but engages
with the original motif in a way that disempowers the first graffitist andappropriates the space on which the original graffiti was written. The second
graffitist is reinscribing the landscape of the cell thus, negotiating space as a
coping strategy of his own.

123

Hate messages
The data indicates that hate messages are predominantly in hidden areas aswell as in highly visible and private space (figure 5.1). From this, I postulategraffiti was used as a tool of power play between inmates, not only as an act
of defiance directed toward the establishment. It is not surprising that threat
and profanity motifs are relatively small (figures 5.4) and mostly in private
locales (figure 5.3) because the guards tolerated very offensive or
threatening graffiti, particularly if directed at the establishment, even lessthan other graffiti. For example, in site 3, the 3 hidden hate messages which
exhibit sexually explicit power play between inmates remain intact, whereas
1 of the 2 private hate messages (figure 5.11) which reads ‘Fuck Skrew’,
despite being quite small (3.5 x 5cm) shows evidence of removal. Even in1991 when some inmates were permitted to decorate their cells, making
graffiti of this nature may have incurred punishment and the graffiti removed
or painted over. Figure 6.8 site 6 (D61) motif 5 is a highly visible ‘hatemessage’ motif. The cartoonish male figure has his middle finger raised,gesturing in the direction of the door. The writing on the figure’s shirt reads‘Fuck off screw’. It is clear this hate message is directed at the guards/a
guard. What is not clear is the intended transparency of resistance. Perhaps
the graffitist reconsidered intentionally resisting authority so overtly, andpartially obscured the text before it was seen, thus disguising histransgression. Alternatively, he may have been reprimanded and instructedby the guard to cover the writing. Figure 6.9 site 6 (D61) motif 41 is a private‘hate message’ motif located above the lintel of the sealed door (206 cm from124

floor) which would be in direct line of sight from the top of a prison bunk-bed,
but invisible to guards unless the cell was being thoroughly searched.

Figure 6.8 Highly visible hate message
directed at guards.

Figure 6.9 Private hate message directed at
cellmate.

Love messages
I contend that the predomination of ‘love messages’ in highly visible andhidden locales (Figure 5. 3) may be due to the function of these motifs being
to message assertions of heterosexuality by the writer to other men. Visibilityof love messages as well as contextual motifs in Sites 3, 6 and 11(figures
5.11, 5.20 and 5.33) support this assertion. The majority of these motifs
include both a man’s and women’s name and love hearts. Conversely, withinsite 1 heart icons and love messages are, atypically, not ‘on display’ in any
way (figure 5.6). The private and intimate nature of site 1 graffiti is

125exemplified by motif 17 which is scratched into a toothpaste splodge andreads ‘woman’s name I love you’. The graffitist is exhibiting a coping strategy
that is internalised, specifically, this is what Mohino et.al. (2004:42) term acognitive, emotion-focused, method of coping.

As well as messaging and reaffirming gender identity, these love messages
are a marker of connections to the outside and inscriptions of personal
identity. The act of inscribing identity is in itself a cathartic act. Although there
are no discernibly homosexual love messages, there are a few examples ofmessages of support which are direct messages from one man to another.
These motifs are in private locales and as such are only meant to be seen by
the writer and cellmate. This kind of support between inmates is extolled in apoem Figure 6.10 site 10 (D65) motif 23.

Figure 6.10 Site 10 motif 23 supportive message.

126

Although in a hidden space (it is on panel 4 but close to the doorway, thus,
has the potential to be seen) the circular border and plastic covered hookthat has been melted to fit against the wall suggest this motif may have been
obscured by a hung object, thus making it less visible. This poem/story is aremnant of a deep relationship between two men and is material evidence ofa coping strategy that involves immersion in a social network and nicheseeking behaviour. Zamble and Porporino (1988:13) follow Lazurus andFolkman’s (1984) theoretical perspective on inmate coping strategies stating‘one individual deals with the stress of the long confinement he faces by
avoiding all thoughts of the future, while the other strives to ameliorate his
condition by finding a safe and comfortable behavioural niche within theinstitution’. Within the motif the word ‘forever’ is underlined suggesting thegraffitist was not employing the coping strategy Zamble and Porporino(1988:95) term ‘avoidance’ whereby inmates do not think of the future,
particularly a future on the outside. Although it is not known whether or not‘forever’ and the anticipated ‘good times’ were expected to take place inprison or on the outside, it is clear that the inmate who wrote this has found a‘protective niche’ as a means for coping with imprisonment. In light of Zamble
and Porporino’s (1988:122,123) analysis of the effects of long term
imprisonment, it is likely that the two men ‘B and M’ were both serving longsentences, because inmates often avoid substituting relationships withfriends and lovers on the outside with relationships with other inmatesparticularly with those serving short sentences.

127

Humour
Humorous motifs predominate in hidden and private cell spaces (figure 5.3),
thus, they are made to be viewed by the cell occupants. Good examples ofthis are found in sites 3 (Figure 5.11), 4 (Figure 5.14), 6 (Figure 5 20), and 8(Figure 5.25). For Casella (2009:176) humorous inmate graffiti is classed asgraffiti made for amusement and diversion from the ‘monotonous boredom of
institutional life’ which has been identified as a locus for anxiety and stress ininmate populations (see Zamble and Porporino 1990,1988; Wilson 2008;
Johnson 2007). The role of humour in graffiti as discussed by Abel andBuckley (1977) see jokes providing an outlet for anxiety caused byrepressing impulses. An impulse, for example aggression, is aroused,
repressed and allowed to escape via its disguise as a joke. Abel and Buckley(1977:122) contend that jokes are ‘one of the most characteristic and least
offensive ways of discharging aggression’. However, to recognise humour,and by extension, find something humorous the audience will have ‘some
sort of psychological empathy with the jokester’ (Abel and Buckley
1977:113). In this sense, identification of humour in the graffiti at Fremantle
Prison was somewhat problematic, for example in site 3 (H59) motif 75 reads‘The word girl means life support system for a cunt’. This is quite possibly
intended as humour, but for it to work as a joke, according to Abel andBuckley (1977) the reader must share the psychological or social dispositionof the writer. In this instance, the motif was categorised as misogynistic,rather than presume that other readers might interpret this as humorous.

128

Motif size
The size of written motifs in relation to their placement in highly visible hidden
and private space further explicates who the motifs were made for. As
discussed, additional text and cathartic motifs were meant to be seen by
fellow inmates and guards and this is supported by the relatively large size ofthese motifs in highly visible locales as shown in (Figure 5.4). The large
proportion of hidden space taken up by humorous written motifs suggests theimportance of and preference for humorous graffiti for inmates. The threat
and profanity motifs in private space are disproportionately large comparedto their number (Figure 5.1). This further supports the idea that these kinds of
inscription were best kept from the gaze of the guards. However, motifs on
toothpaste splodges in highly visible locales (as shown in Figure 6.11) (S1
motifs 15 and 14) and illustrate the problem of classing very small motifs as‘highly visible’. A visual representation using GIS technology to create a 3D
map of the graffiti within the cells, could show the spatial position of motifs,
as well as their size. This approach to spatial analysis would rectify thecontradiction wherein small inscriptions are classed as highly visible. The
data collected for this project in conjunction with digital video footage would
allow such a model to be created, but was beyond the scope of this project.
Identifying small motifs such as that shown in Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12
required importing an artificial light source and close scrutiny of the wall. As
shown in Figure 6.11 (motif 15) the motif is only discernible when viewed ‘up
close’ and it is unlikely anyone apart from the graffitist and possibly his
cellmate would ever have seen this inscription.

129

Figure 6.11 Site 1 motif 15 close up of motif 15 the toothpaste splodge

Figure 6.12 Site 1 motif 15 (inscribed toothpaste splodge) and motif 14 incised tally marks
beneath paint layer.

130

Tally marks
Surprisingly, of the 707 motifs in the cell sites only 9 of these are tally marks(Figure 5.2) which are confined to 4 cells: site 1 (Figure 5.5) site 2 (Figure5.8) site 8 (Figure 5.24) and site 11 (Figure ). One of the 4 tally mark motifs
in site1, motif 14 shown in Figure 6.12 is beneath the wall paint layer, whilst
the other 3 are scratched or incised into that paint layer, indicating motif 14
was made before the other tally marks. It is possible that these were madeby one inmate who had a preference for this kind of inscription and did soover time. However, this is unlikely because names in the form of initials, fullnames and nickname belong to 9 individuals, and suggest the presence of 5different graffitists. (4 of the initials or names belong to ‘named others’). Noneof the authored motifs have evidence of superposition of other motifs or are
beneath the wall paint layer, therefore they are likely to be contemporaneouswith the tally marks scratched and incised into the paint layer. It cannot be
ascertained whether the 4 sets of tally marks in this cell were the product of
one long term graffitist who chose to inscribe the passing of time or not. If
this were the case it would mean that at least 4 other men consecutively
inhabited this cell with the inmate who created motif 14.

Toothpaste
All the cells recorded contained copious numbers of toothpaste splodges.

Toothpaste was used to adhere posters, photographs and the like, although,like the painting of murals and other graffiti within the cells, this was a featureof the prison's last months of operation. Before 1991 all pictures (limited to131two per man) had to be in approved frames, usually made from cardboard ormatchsticks (Withnell pers com 2014).

Evidence of paper on walls
Motif 8 from site 5 (D61) is the remnant of a picture drawn on coarsely
textured paper that had been removed. The pigment from the drawing(possibly pigment from another drawing on the underside of the paper) has
transferred on to the wall. The paper was stuck on with toothpaste splodges
still evident in the corners of the square that was the piece of paper. It musthave been there for some time as the surrounding wall is darker/dirtier than
the square where the picture had been. Exfoliation of wall paint occurred
before the picture was put up. This is evident by the presence of blue paint(the wall paint layer beneath) both, outside and within the space previously
occupied by the drawing. There are also some smudges of pigment outsideof the line indicating the edge of paper, suggesting the paper was drawn ontoor added to whilst the paper was on the wall. There is also a remnant of thepaper remaining on the wall. Motif 7 from site 1 (H63) is a small piece of
paper with printed text stuck to toothpaste. This indicates that the toothpaste
splodges were used as an adhesive for pictures and the like. Evidence ofposters and the like exist in site 8 (C16) motif 63 is a written motif, whichreads ‘I love this bitch’ with an arrow pointing sideways to where a picture ofa woman would have been. Also within site 8 (C16) there is the remnant of apicture of a woman (motif 51) and two posters of cars (motif 84) on the backof the site 8 door.

132

Variation between cells
Analysis of inscription revealed typological variation of motifs between thecells, which appear as thematic or aesthetic trends. Inter cell comparison
indicates individual graffitists were employing similar coping strategies using
differing forms of expression. For example site 4 is dominated by tag motifs
shown in Figure 5.13, these are all done in the same hand and the width andcolour of the permanent marker used is consistent. Although there are
numerous different tags it is unlikely that multiple 'taggers' would haveoccupied the cell. Only two individual tags are included in the 'crew tags' and'throw-ups' (Ferrell 1993:58,83) which signify the inmate's 'crew' or socialgroup. For this inmate, his tags perform the same function as 'named others''place names' and pictorial landscapes in other cells. He is simultaneously
signalling his group identity 'on the outside' and recreating an urban aesthetic
within his cell.
Variation in numbers of motifs within individual cells, contain between 15 to
184 motifs. Correlations between motif type and spatial positioning indicate
consistencies in the placement of motifs in highly visible, hidden and private
locales within the cells with regard to their typology.

133

Site 12 The Yard

Figure 6.13 Division 2 yard, north-west corner. Site 12 panel and Perspex covered
photograph of the, now faded, mural.

One of the commissioned Aboriginal artworks painted on the walls of Division
2 Yard is commemorated by a perspex covered photograph of the painting(Figure 6.14) mounted on the wall next to the site12 panel shown in Figure
6.13. This painting once covered the graffiti pictured in Figure 6.13 and theblue of the sky and some of the bolder features are still visible. Whether theact of sanitising the representation of Indigenous presence by covering theAboriginal graffiti with an aesthetically pleasing image of idyllic Aboriginal life
(Figure 6.14) was intentional or not, this act of reinscription is an example ofwhat Wilson (2008d: 53) calls 'the gatekeeper phenomenon'.

134

Figure 6.14 Mounted photograph of the mural that used to cover site 12 panel

Division 2 yard was originally sectioned down the middle for separating
Indigenous inmates from the broader population and the motifs on the wall
suggest this space continued to be a place for Indigenous inmates.
Indigenous surnames and rural and remote placenames and portions ofindeterminate messages as well as the fact that this panel was chosen forthe mural, support the idea that this was predominantly Aboriginal space.
Motif 43 is an incised, incomplete, but determinate hate message with nosuperposition of motifs. It is beneath the paint layer that served as theundercoat for the (motif 1) mural. The motif reads ‘Racists’ with a diamondshape above it, which lends credence to the idea that diamond shapes could
be a codified symbol of the card game ‘koont’. Motifs are predominantly
incised or scratched as shown in Figure 5.35. Many of the incised motifs are
below paint layers and also are the first of up to 3 identifiable layers ofsuperpositioning as shown in figure 5.34 and illustrated in Figure 6.15.The
number of incised motifs may be due to the heavy exfoliation of the panelthat has rendered 6 of the motifs with no superposition incomplete /indeterminate and may explain the low number of drawn motifs (Figure 5. ).
135

The white paint layer which can be clearly seen covering motif 54 in Figure
6.16 Site 12 motif 54.is dated to 1991. The law of superposition dictates thatany motif beneath that white layer that is older. If the age of the cream/ whitepaint beneath this layer was known it would substantiate the timeframe of
inscription of the surviving motifs on site 12 panel. The youngest inscribed
date beneath the cream/white paint layer is 1988 (motif 58 layer 1 of 3) andthe oldest is 1981 (motif 21 layer 1 of 2). The 8 incised or scratched dates onsite 12 panel are within this age range, therefore it is highly likely thecontextual motifs were done in the 1980’s also. 2 names (first name andsurname) contextual with the incised motifs from site 12 were identified within
Division 2 cells which questions
further the assumption that all cellgraffiti was made in 1991.

Figure 6.15 S12. Incised woman’s face, layer 1 of 3.

The yard panel recorded is predominated by indigenous graffiti, is near the
toilets and all motifs are in a highly visible locale. The proximity of the toilets
to the panel is consequential for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it would be
remiss to not consider the attributes of latrinalia in this context. Under Halsey
and Young's (2002) categories, latrinalia is often communicative and madefor an audience, featuring both personal and political slogans, which comeunder my typological headings of love and hate messages and in someinstances catharsis. Graffitist's motivations are integral to the study of graffiti
136

and motifs on the site 12 panel are messaging individual and group identity inthe form of names of individuals and places. Wilson (2008d:70,71) warns
against equating general observation and discussion surrounding latrinalia toprison contexts as there is less assurance of anonymity and privacy, andrightly so. However, the Division 2 yard wall is unique, as it is a space formessaging and its location next to the toilets means that it will be seen by all
inmates. Secondly, Withnell's (1984) emic perspective on the socio-spatialorganisation of the yard and attitudinal differences between Aboriginal andwhite inmates with regard to ablutions illuminates the way in which this space
was used. Withnell (1984:62) speaks of the 'crim taboo' amongst white
inmates, against using the night buckets, the stench of which contaminatedthe private space of the cell and when emptied into the drainage sump in themorning exposed the bucket's owner to ‘the displeasure of other crims’. This
shame was not shared by Aboriginal inmates who perceived the disdain of
befoulment as a weakness on the part of the white inmates (Withnell
1984:77). Thus, places such as the immediate vicinity of the toilets, thatwhite inmates regarded as 'negative turf' were restructured, high status areas
for Aboriginal inmates (Withnell 1984:68, 77). The necessity to use the toilet
meant white inmates had to openly breach the befoulment taboo in intimate
proximity to the 'fixed territory' of Aboriginal inmates (Withnell 1984:78).
McDonald and Veth (2006:104) use the idea of ‘audience and social context’
to explicate stylistic choices and the use of particular Indigenous Australianrock art motifs in either public or private locals to ascertain the roles rock art
played in the lives of Aboriginal peoples. This conceptualisation of
messaging in public or private places is relevant to the spatial context of137

site12 and the motifs present. For McDonald and Veth (2006:104) the 'public
art of a region would be the most likely medium to reveal stylistic patterning
to function as boundary maintenance, or at least to demonstrate localizedsocial affiliations'. Within the physical landscape of Fremantle Prison the'region' is confined by the Prison's walls and functions such as boundary
maintenance are signalled by 'stylistic patterning' of a literal nature.
Figure 6.16 is motif 54 measures 40cm x 72cm. The text ‘Black Power’ issimultaneously messaging 'localised social affiliations' / group identity andfunctioning as a marker of 'boundary maintenance' / fixed territory.

Figure 6.16 Site 12 motif 54.

Motif 29 (Figure 6.17) measures 42cm x 105cm. The barely surviving text,
reads 'The white man made us many promises he kept but one, he promised
to take our land and he did'. Here the graffitist is expressing catharsis andasserting his and his group's identity, going beyond the delineations of 'turf'138

asserting that 'the land was there before white men built their prisons'(Withnell 1984:76).

Figure 6.17 Motif 29.

The incised and scratched names covered by the whitewash-like paint,
beneath the remnants of messaging graffiti and the skeletal remains of the
sanctioned mural of Country, that once covered these layers, provides apalimpsest of inscription of Indigenous experience at Fremantle Prison.

139

Conclusion
The aim of this research was to investigate inmate's experiences andnegotiation of confinement at Fremantle Prison, by utilising artefactual
evidence provided by graffiti and other marks. Methodological approaches(as discussed in chapter 4) undertaken for this project, specifically theconstruction of a functional typology and attention to viewscapes that
represent the gaze of the guards, allowed my aim to be met. The problem ofmotif size (as discussed in chapter 6) whereby small motifs in highly visible
space contradict their spatial classification as 'highly visible', would be solved
by applying a GIS model. Attention has been paid to this problem when
considering correlations between visibility and motif typology and notes madeon recording forms (in appendix 2) in the few instances where this was thecase.
The application of archaeological approaches to ascertain temporal contexts
proved problematic. No records for the painting of cells exist. If dates for thepainting of cells were available, precise dates for a number of motifs,
particularly those that are incised, could be determined. Superposition of
motifs from site 12 panel and the presence of the overlying paint layer from1991 provides evidence that graffiti was being made before the last 12
months of the prisons operation. Inscribed dates from the 1980's on site 12
panel cannot support evidence that some graffiti within the cells is older than1991. Inmates had greater opportunity for making graffiti in the yards without
being identified. Evidence of deterioration (as discussed in chapter 1) allows
a sequence of inscription to be determined, providing the motifs undercomparison experience the same conditions. Motifs within Fremantle Prison

140

are susceptible to conditions such as: direct sun, which may induce fading or
cracking, or exposure to wind or rain which may promote exfoliation.

Approaching graffiti as 'text as material culture' has allowed inclusion of themuted inmate perspective, as voiced in their inscriptions, to be heard andarchived. Within places of institutional confinement public and private spaceis reconfigured by imposed physical and social strictures. When privacy islimited by constant surveillance (or the threat thereof) quasi private places
are created by the inmate. The prison cell becomes a sanctuary and anemblematic representation of his 'self'. Once inscribed, these places arecanvases for catharsis, resistance and reiteration of identity.

Stresses caused by separation from loved ones, poor sanitary conditions,interpersonal grievances, lack of privacy and boredom experienced byinmates and expressed within the graffiti at Fremantle Prison werenegotiated via the remapping of space within the confines that provokedthese stresses. Spatial positioning of graffiti typologies reveals the roles
played by inscription, in re-mapping space within the cells. Highly visible
portions of wall act as message boards, expressing resistance to authorities,
personal catharsis and assertions of identity. Hidden space within cells acts
as a locus for dialogue between inmates, where jokes are shared, discontent
voiced and camaraderie communicated. Hidden spaces also become places
for messaging group affiliations, and individual identity as well as an arenafor hierarchical assertions of power between inmates. Within highly visible
and hidden spaces the meaning behind inscriptions is often codified,141

providing another tactic for attaining privacy and avoiding retribution from theguards. Locales discussed within this dissertation as 'private' are home tothreats, personal testimony in the form of full names, as well as signatures ofconnections to 'the outside' such as placenames and names of loved ones. A
large amount of graffiti at Fremantle Prison particularly the colourful painted
murals and cathartic testimonials done in bold permanent marker within thecells, may have been the result of a prison initiated program of disguise that
doubled as an additional means of surveillance by the prison administration.
Whether the motivations for 'allowing' graffiti to be made by inmates were as
multifarious as these assertions suggest or not, the result is an example of
how inmates chose to express themselves.

Future applications

Recording of Division 2 catwalk was carried out as part of this research but
has not been included in this dissertation. This data could be included inanalysis of 'administrative' marks both 'official' and 'non official' throughout
the prison and would provide a broader data set of inscription at Fremantle
Prison that would include the inscribed experiences of people other thaninmates within Fremantle Prison. A collegial project under the direction of theFremantle Prison administration examining official signage was due to beundertaken in 2015, but was cancelled due to funding issues. Therefore thisline of investigation is open to archaeological and/or sociological student
projects in the future.

142

References cited
Abel, E.L. and B.E. Buckley 1977 The Handwriting on the Wall: Toward asociology and Psychology of Graffiti. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Agutter, R. 2013 Marking Time: Graffiti at the Adelaide Gaol. Unpublished
Masters thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of South
Australia,
Anonymous 1986 Title. Unpublished report prepared for the Prisoner
Services Division.
Baird, J.A. and C. Taylor 2011 Ancient Graffiti in Context: Introduction. In J.A.
Baird and C. Taylor (eds), Ancient Graffiti in Context. New York:
Routledge.
Barthes, R. 1981 Camera lucida: reflections on photography. New York: Hilland Wang.
Bavin, L. 1994 The Punishment Administered: Archaeology and Penal
Institutions in the Swan River Colony, Western Australia. UnpublishedPHD thesis, Centre for Archaeology Department of Geography,
University of Western Austraila, Perth.
Bellhouse, D.R. 1980 Sampling Studies in Archaeology. Archaeometry
22(2):123-132.
Bentham, J. 1791 Panopticon; or The Inspection House. London: By T.
Payne.
Bodycoat ,R and D, Stephen 1993 Fremantle Prison Conservation and
Future Use: detailed conservation policy for Divisions 1 and 2.
Available from: Fremantle Prison Research File 26a/1249.
Bosworth, M. 1990 Fremantle Prison: conservation and Future Use: Main
Cell Block. Perth: Building Management Authority of W.A.
Burke, H. and C. Smith 2004 The Archaeologist's Field Handbook. Crows
Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Casella, E.C. 2001 Every Procurable Object: A functional analysis of theRoss

Factory

ArchaeologicalCollection.

Australian

Historical

Archaeology 19(Special Issue: Archaeology of Confinement):25-38.

143

Casella, E.C. 2004 Legacy of the 'Fatal Shore': The Heritage andArchaeology of Confinement in Post-Colonial Australia. Journal ofSocial Archaeology 4(99):99-125.
Casella, E.C. 2005 Prisoner of His Majesty: postcoloniality and thearchaeology of British penal transportation. World Archaeology
37(3):453-467.
Casella,

E.C.

2007

The

ArchaeologyofInstitutional

Confinement.

Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Casella, E.C. 2009 Written on the Walls. In A.M. Beisaw and J. Gibb (eds),
The Archaeology of Institutional Life, pp.172-186. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.
Casella, E.C. and C. Fredericksen 2001 Introduction to the Archaeology ofConfinement in Australia. Australasian Historical Archaeology 19:3-5.
Clogg, P. and M. Diaz-Andreu 2000 Digital Image Processing and theRecording of Rock Art. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:837-843.
Cresswell, T. 1996 In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, andTransgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Department of Corrective Services 1991a Prison Timetable ,Fremantle Prison. Available from: Fremantle prison Research File
26a/2456.
Department of Corrective Services 1991b Prisoner Information Booklet,
Fremantle Prison, pp.1-20. Available from: Fremantle Prison Research
File 26a/1249.
Department of Corrective Services 1991c History Table: toilet roll in sock.
Available from: Fremantle prison Research File 26a/1207.
Dewar, M. and C. Fredericksen 2003 Prison Heritage, Public History andArchaeology at Fannie Bay Gaol, Northern Australia. International
Journal of Heritage Studies 9(1):45-63.
Ferrell, J. 1993 Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality.
New York: Garland Publishing.
Fieni, D. 2012 What a Wall Wants, or How graffiti Thinks: Nomad
Grammatology in the French Banlieue. Diacritics 40(2):72-93.
Forster, A.M., S. Vettese-Forster and J. Borland 2012 Evaluating the cultural
significance of historic graffiti. Structural Survey 30(1):43-64.
144

Foucault, M. 2008 "Panopticism" from "Dicipline & Punish: The Birth of the
Prison". Race/Ethnicity: Multidiciplinary Global Contexts 2(1):1-12.
Frederick, U.K. 2009 Revolution is the New Black: Graffiti/Art and Mark making Practices Archaeologies 5(2):210-237.
Frederick, U.K. 2014 Shake Well Midden: An archaeology of contemporary
graffiti production. Australian Archaeology 7893-99.
Fried, M. 2005 Barthes's Punctum. Critical Inquiry 31(3):539-574.
Fyfe, J. 2010 What were they thinking, and why did they do it? Anarchaeological examination of the social behaviours of Europeans
expressed through historical inscriptions at two northern Australianrock art sites. Unpublished Honours thesis, Archaeology, University ofWestern Australia, Perth.
Fyfe, J. and L.M. Brady 2014 Leaving their mark: Contextualising thehistorical inscriptions and the European presence at Ngiangu (Booby
Island) western Torres Dtrait, Queensland. Australian Archaeology
78:58-68.
Gibbs, M. 2001 The Archaeology of the Convict System in Western Australia.
Australasian Historical Archaeology 19(Special Issue: Archaeology ofConfinement):60-72.
Giddens, A. 1985 Time, Space and Regionalisation. In D. Gregory and J.
Urry (eds), Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp.265-295.
Critical Human Geography. Houndmills: Higher and Further Education
Division Macmillian Publishers Ltd.
Goffman, E. 1968 Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patientsand Other Inmates. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
Gore, R. 1990 Predicting Major Prison Incidents, Policy and Planning Unit of
the Victorian Office of Corrections.
Gustafsson, B. 1956 The Oldest Graffiti in the History of the Church. New
Testament Studies 3(1):65-69.
Halsey, M. and A. Young 2002 The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal
Administration.

The

Australian

Criminology 35(2):165-186.

145

and

New

Zealand

JournalofHarman, J. 2008 Using Decorrelation Stretch to Enhance Rock Art Images.
Retrieved

31

April

2014

from

<<http://dstretch.com/AlgorithmDescription.htm>>.
Hodder, I. 2003 Archaeology beyond Dialogue. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press.
Holdaway, S. 2006 Absolute Dating. In J. Balme and A. Paterson (eds),
Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analysis,
pp.117-158. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Holmberg, K.G., T.W. Stanton and S.R. Hudson 2006 Perceptions ofLandscapes in Uncertain Times. In E.C. Robertson, J.D. Seibert, D.C.
Fernandez and M.U. Zender (eds), Space and Spatial Analysis in
Archaeology, pp.15-28. Calgary: Calgary Press.
Isaac, G. 1993 Tit for Tat: A Journey Into the World of Tattoos. Australia:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation:51 min.
Johnson, L.M. 2007 Jail Wall Drawings and Jail Art Programs: Invaluable
Tools for Corrections. International Journal of Criminal Justice
Sciences 2(2):66-84.
Kerr, J.S. 1988 Out Of Sight Out Of Mind: Australia's places of confinement
1788-1988. Sydney: S.H. Ervin Gallery, National Trust of Astralia.
Kerr, J.S. 1998 Fremantle Prison: A policy for its conservation. Perth: J.S
Kerr:75.
Klofas, J. and C. Cutshall 1985 Unobtrusive Research Methods in Criminal
Justice: Using Graffiti in the Reconstruction of Institutional Cultures.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22(4):355-373.
Kornfeld, P. 1996 Cellblock Visions: Prison Art in America. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Kumar, K. 2009 Convict Heritage Tourism: A case study of Fremantle Prison,
Australia Tourismos 4(4):199-214.
Lanier, M.M. and S. Henry 2010 Essential Criminology. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Lazarus, R.S. and S. Folkman 1984 Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New
York: Springer Publishing Company.

146

McDonald, J. 2000 Media and Social Context: Influences on Stylistic
Communication

NetworksinPrehistoric

Sydney.

Ausralian

Archaeology 51:54-63.
McDonald, J. 2006 Rock-Art. In J. Balme and A. Paterson (eds), Archaeology
in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analysis, pp.59-96.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
McDonald, J. and P. Veth 2006 Rock Art and Social Identity: A Comparisonof Holocene Graphic Systems in Arid and Fertile Environments. . In I.
Lilley (ed.), Archaeology of Oceania: Australia and the Pacific Islands.
Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.
McGivern, J. 1988 Report of the enquiry into the causes of the riot, fire andhotage taking at Fremantle Prison on the 4th and 5th of January 1988.
Perth: Minister for Corrective Services.
Megahey, N. 2000 A Community Apart: A History of Fremantle Prison, 18981991. Unpublished Philosopyhy Doctorate thesis, Arts, Murdoch
University, Perth.
Mein, E. 2012 Inmate Coping Strategies in Fremantle Prison, Western
Australia. Unpublished Honours thesis, Archaeology, University ofWestern Australia,
Merrill, S. and H. Hack 2013 Exploring hidden narratives: Conscript graffiti at
the former millitary base of Kummersdorf. Journal of Social
Archaeology 13(1):101-121.
Millett, P.R. 2003 "[A] mild but firm system of dicipline": British convicts andtheir punishment in Western Australia, 1850-1886. Unpublished PhD
thesis, School of Humanities, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Mohino, S., T. Kirchner and M. Forns 2004 Coping Strategies in Young Male
Prisoners. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33(1):41-49.
Nilsen, D.L.F. 1980 The Grammar of Graffiti. American Speech 55(3):234239.
OED 2014 OED Online. Available from: http://oed.com/view/Entry/38840
Accessed 27 October 2014: Oxford University Press.
Oliver, S. and C. Merrill 2011 Graffiti at Heritage places: Vandalism as
Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege. Time and Mind: The
Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 4(1):59-76.
147

Orton, C. 2000 Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ouzman, S. 2001 Seeing is deceiving: rock art and the non-visual. Worlg
Archaeology 33(2 Archaeology and Aesthetics):237-265.
Ouzman, S. 2007 Title. Unpublished report prepared for the Flinders
University Injalak Rock Art Recording Project.
Ouzman, S. 2010 Graffiti as art(e)fact: A contempory archaeology. University
of Johannesburg Kingsway campus 1-43.
Owoc, M.A. 2006 Beyond Geoarchaeology: Pragmatist Explorations of
Alternative Viewscapes in the British Bronze Age and Beyond. In E.C.
Robertson, J.D. Seibert, D.C. Fernandez and M.U. Zender (eds),
Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, pp.3-14. Calgary: Calgary
Press.
Palassis, K., N. Moredoundt, C. Paterson, L.A. Wei, J. Symons, S. Burke and
M. Dunn 2010 Fremantle Prison Conservation Management Plan: theDepartment of Housing and Works:1-28.
Palmer, D. 1997 In the Anonymity of a Murmur: Graffiti and the Constructionof the Past at Fremantle Prison. In J. Gregory (ed.), Historical Traces,
pp.104-115. Centre for Western Australian History Department ofHistory The University of Western Australia.
Palmer, D. n.d. Muted voices: graffiti and the construction of the past at theFremantle Prison. Art and Graffiti at Fremantle Prison, Available from:
Fremantle Prison Research File 41a/1262.
Plesch, V. 2002 Memory on the Wall: Graffiti on Religious Wall Paintings.
Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 32(1):167-197.
Preucel, R. 2006 Archaeological Semiotics. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Reisner, R. 1971 Graffiti: two thousand years of wall writing. New York:
Cowles Book Co.
Rose, M. 2002 The seductions of resistance: power, politics, and aperformative style of systems. Environment and planning D: Society
and space 20:383-400.
Schiffer, M.B. 1974 On Whallon's Use of Dimensional Analysis of Variance at
Guila Naquitz. American Antiquity 39(3):490-492.

148

Schofield, J. 2013 'A Dirtier Reality?' Archaeological Methods and the Urban
Project. In P. Graves-Brown, R. Harrison and A. Piccini (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World,
p.11. Oxford Handbooks Online.
Schofield, J., R. Kiddey and B. Lashua 2012 People and Landscape. In R.
Skeates, C. McDavid and J. Carman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Public Archaeology, p.16. Oxford Press.
Scott, J.C. 1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of PeasantResistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sundstrom, L. 2012 Rock Art in Situ: Context and Content as Keys to
Meaning. In, A Companion to Rock Art, pp.323-340. Malden: WileyBlackwell.
Superintendents Register, 20 April 1988-29 December, 1988, WAS 747,
Cons. 4329.
Taçon, P.S.C. and C. Chippindale 2004 An Archaeology of Rock-art throughinformed and formal methods. In C. Chippindale and P.S.C. Taçon(eds), The Archaeology of Rock Art, pp.1-9. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thomas, J. 2001 Archaeologies of Place and Lanscape. In I. Hodder (ed.),Archaeological Theory Today, pp.165-186. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Weber, B. 2014 Poison biography, All music web site. Retrieved 1 October
2014 from http://www.allmusic.com/artist/poisonmn0000355616/biography
Wilson, J. 1992 Behind Closed Doors: inside Fremantle Prison. Fremantle
Arts Review 7(4-5):4-6.
Wilson, J.Z. 2008a Pecking orders: Power relationships and gender inAustralian prison graffiti. Ethnography 9(1):99-121.
Wilson, J.Z. 2008b Prison: Cultural Memory and Dark Tourism. New York:Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Wilson, J.Z. 2008c Racist and Political Extremist Graffiti in AustralianPrisons, 1970s to 1990s. The Howard Journal 47(1):52-66.
Wilson, J.Z. 2008d Transgressive decor: Narrative glimpses in Australianprisons, 1970s-1990s. Crime Media Culture 4(3):331-348.

149

Winchester, H.P.M., I. Davidson and D.R. O'Brein 1996 Historical graffiti innorthern Australia: Evidence of European settlement and society in
the Selwyn Range of northwest Queensland. Australian Archaeology
43:1-7.
Winter, S. 2013 Historical archaeological research in Western Australia: acritical review and suggestions for future research. AustralasianHistorical Archaeology 31:49-59.
Withnell, E. 1983 Doing Time: the temporal reality of the criminal's
exestential world. Australian Journal of Cultural Studies 1(1):80-91.
Withnell, E. 1984 Stone walls... The Spatial Determinations of the Criminal's
Existential World. Australian Journal of Cultural Studies 2(2):61-89.
Yogan, L.J. and L.M. Johnson 2006 Gender Differences in Jail Art andGraffiti. The South Shore Journal 1:31-52.
Young, A. 2010 Negotiated consent or zero tolerance? Responding to graffiti
and street atr in Melbourne. City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory,policy, action 14(1-2):99-114.
Zamble, E. and F. Porporino 1990 Coping, Imprisonment, and Rehabilitation:
Some Data and their Implications. Criminal Justice and Behaviour
17(1):53-70.
Zamble, E. and F.J. Porporio 1988 Coping, Behaviour, and Adaptation in
Prison Inmates. New York: Springer-Verlag.

150