Welcome to the Rivers Museums.
Matters of Policy podcast, this is a podcast in which we explore the museum's collections development policy,
speaking with guests from across the globe to delve into the language used and consider what really matters in this policy.
Hi, I'm Alexis. Hi, I'm Megan, and I'm on indigenous land today.
I'd like to do a land acknowledgement, so I am a white settler of Celtic and British descent living on Treaty one territory in Winnipeg,
which is the traditional lands of the initial knob, the new Ajiboye, the new Cree ogy,
Cree Denny and Dakota peoples, as well as the birthplace of the nation.
I acknowledge that Canada's history of colonialism and genocide continue to deeply harm indigenous communities,
and I am committed to listening to indigenous people throughout my work in cultural
institutions and learning as much as I can in order to move forward with truth,
reconciliation and restitution. And today will be interviewing.
Solomon E. A. Solomon Innes is an indigenous artist from Hawaii who works in a variety of mediums, including contemporary pieces.
He has worked extensively with the Pitt Rivers Museum and is here today to talk about his experience working with the
Pitt Rivers Museum as an artist and to share his perspectives on the practises and policies of the Pitt Rivers Museum.
OK, first question can you tell us just a bit about your experience working with the Pitt Rivers?
Sure. Absolutely. It was a call I got by corps.
She had reached out to me with their interest of creating an intervention piece in the museum.
I was absolutely honoured. I must say I have different load, but I guess it's a real big fan of everything British.
My grandmother is from England and so I've had a chance to visit England several
times and I basically I'm listening to the BBC radio like all day long.
I even spend time listening to the BBC Radio four and I love to hear the shipping a shipping report.
You know, little things like that. So I have a real big fan of everything.
You know, British and so in whole our royalty,
it really had a strong connexion with British culture because at the time we were between America and England,
you know, as far as our it came to our kingdom, but any rolling it for it,
it's really wonderful to continue to collaborate and to work with you folks.
And especially because the level of sensitivity and the layer of storytelling that is being achieved
for the museum is setting such an important standard for how stories get told about the artefacts.
It's a real, real careful line, and I'm sure it's happening with so many other folks.
I'm really interested in what's what's been going on with the I believe is like the beginning the collections of materials that have
come from Africa and that real big discussion about whether those things get returned or whether they get on they put on display.
And it's such a dual sided thing because on one hand, artefacts should go home to where they're from.
But at the same time, there's opportunity to understand not only through, you know, stories are important,
but the actual artefacts actually be able to look at something and to see a feather,
a fairly cloak from Hawaii or something like that to be able to see the entire working and the interweaving of everything.
Those pieces are also a kind of ambassadors as well, so I can definitely see the two sides of it.
But I think the level of sensitivity again, it sets such important standards for how stories get told about the materials that represent the culture.
So, yeah, I'm going to be giving pretty much five stars for most of these questions.
So, you know, just just because I get I mean,
I've never had this level of care and sensitivity attributed to cultural artefacts that, you know, for me as a Native Hawaiian.
Are these really extensions of me and my ancestors and all of you know, all those people in Hawaii?
Can you tell me, how does this personal experience that you've had with the Pitt rivers compared to the policy?
What were your initial reactions to reading some of the things in the policy?
Well, it really sets a standard for being able to retroactively go through the some of the archives and some
of the materials as what you guys are doing helps to make up for centuries of misrepresentation.
So I think for the most part, both the policies as they were written, you know,
as you guys presented them to me and how it actually played out is was completely in sync.
So I think I think that way that policies were implemented were completely in line with what actually happened.
So glowing reviews. I'm so glad to hear that because I'm Canadian and there's a lot of very negative.
Stories about Western Canadians interacting with sort of indigenous people who live on Turtle Island as well,
so there's not always a great relationship,
so it's really good to hear and we're learning a lot, particularly with Marine Corps, about the idea of objects having lives.
And I would absolutely love to hear more of that perspective from you about objects
having sort of their own lived experiences and their own lives within the museum,
because I'm not sure that the policy always sort of takes that into account, but it's a bit more clinical.
Sure. I think one thing I really want to hone in on is definitely objects being, you know, again, an expense of actual people,
a book of a culture and overarching view of why I think this is so important and why I really honoured to have a chance to work with you, folks.
This is what many of our ancient cultures remind us and this and our indigenous cultures, that's what it reminds us of.
And I always wonder, whenever I talk about native indigenous cultures, I also really want to be sure to include, to a degree, absolutely everybody.
Everybody is indigenous and everybody is native to somewhere.
By acknowledging the indigenous and other people, we are working towards respecting their own indigenous.
Yes, well, this is how we should all be treated. This is all all our artefacts to be treated.
I understand that distinction between an indigenous person and then somebody maybe not be indigenous to that place.
But at the same time, I'm trying to find a way to make sure that when we talk about honouring objects that come from humans,
that it is something that is collective. What are the lessons that that holds,
I think for modern society is that the things that we wore like if I have a copper cloak or a copper skirt in ancient Hawaii,
I knew where that came from.
If I was 500 years ago and I was wearing this clothes, I saw my grandmother harvests the bulkier bushes or the bulky plant,
and I saw her ferment it, and then I saw her beat it into copper.
And then now I'm wearing it as an ancient person. I know the genealogy, so to speak of the things I'm wearing.
And because of that, I appreciate this.
I understand and also by watching my grandmother make that clock, I've learnt how to do it and I'm going to make it right.
In today's society, I don't know where this shirt came from. You know, I don't know if the people who made this shirt.
I don't know if they're safe. I don't know if they were living and working conditions where they're I mean, maybe, maybe they are.
Maybe, I don't know. We've come from a time when we don't know what the objects around us right now are modern objects.
We don't know who made them. We don't know how those, how they're doing.
So I think that to me is almost like the subtext for making sure that the stories
are told about all the object is a reminder for us today to look around us and say,
Well, you know, we're living in our own museum and we should know the name to our computers are our headphones.
Like, who are the people that are making things around this? How are they?
And are they? Well, you know? So I think that's that's sort of the subtext which may not always be caught,
but I think that's what I want to bring up is that it's important for us to label sort of everything about labelling matters,
labelling everything we own matters to. You know, I think that's something I would even I would extend that idea.
Totally agree with your point about the sort of disconnect that we have in the modern world, but also in the Pitt Rivers collection and in the policy,
there's a lot more detail or focus on the collectors and not as much focus on the artists who made the collections.
Where were they taken from? What do you think of that? How do you think the museum can rectify that?
Part of the exhibit of ancient artefacts from a place is to bring in the modern voice that we're descendants of
those people and having them talk about what it feels like to have their artefacts in other parts of the world.
I think it's important for for the museum to present so that, say, Hawaiians, who don't want the artefacts to be shown and want them all back.
I'm definitely on the other end with a bit more. I mean, I think artefacts, when they need to return, they need to return.
But at the same time, in order for a culture to survive, education is such an important part.
In other words, it's easier to be erased if people don't even know you in the first place.
Right? And I think that is part of a cultural resurgence is letting the world showing the world the degree of excellence that goes into our artefacts,
that goes into the things that our ancestors made.
So I think the museum should potentially give voice to give some labelling or to give some information from
people who are opposed to those artefacts being there and why they think artefacts should not be there.
So in other words, it's a bit tricky because you almost want to say here these artefacts, you're the people that made it, you're the descendants.
Some of them agree that. Should be here. Some of them don't want this to be here,
and this is why they don't want to be here to give the opposing view why these
artefacts should be here and into the museum would then probably have to say,
like, we acknowledge these things, but then this is why we're deciding to keep it here, though.
So ultimately, try to offer two sides of the coin why the museum made that final decision.
Maybe it's superfluous, you know, maybe it's going too much,
but I think that might be helpful and it might be helpful right across the board for so many other different
kinds of is the gift to give room for the dissenting voices about why the artefacts should all be returned.
We've been learning a lot again in courses and as well with Muranga about dissenting voices and also
about museum administrators being a little bit reticent to sort of have these voices presented,
which is not really a tenable position going forward.
Since more people are coming forward and this whole idea of transparency of history, it was always important.
But it's becoming more and more well-known now where people want to have all viewpoints explored.
Whereas, you know, for the Pitt rivers specifically, thus far there's been the Western British colonial voice,
whereas now they're representing all of these different communities. They should have their voices there.
And it's been really interesting working with Marenco as well to talk about sort of the idea of objects with agency,
not just people who made these objects with agency, but how the objects themselves sort of have agency.
So do you think that there is a way for the policy to present the idea of an object with agency?
Because thus far, you know, the policy is very much focussed on the collectors and what the museum does with their collections,
but it's not so much focussed on, OK, what do these collections do for themselves?
And do you think that there's a way that the policy can better reflect that?
I think I'm just going to give you guys a short answer for this one because I'm just so happy that you guys are already doing what you're doing.
It's it's almost like I feel like if I do whatever I recommend,
I think just based on what I've been hearing and what I've been reading and conversations that I've had with Miranda,
if I say, Hey, you should do this, you should do that, then I think it seems like you folks would be like, Yes, we're getting there.
Those things are already on the bench.
So anything I have to recommend really already seems like that's the direction that you folks are already taking.
I mean, like I said, the only other thing I was going to mention is what you're already doing,
which is to then involve contemporary artists who are still making artefacts.
We're still making objects is to include their work with their ancestral work.
You guys are already doing that. So I would just say more of these art intervention pieces because, you know,
contemporary art coming from a place is such an important way to reconnect that with the the ancient art that they came from that place as well.
So long story short, you folks are already doing. I think one of the most important things, which is saying that this culture is not gone,
it's not a was culture, it's it is culture and it's going to be culture.
Yeah, contemporary artists and modern people's voices, people who are living now and are part of that culture and that heritage is so, so important.
And that's, yeah, part of the work that I think we're trying to do here.
So your perspective as a contemporary artist and having some of your work in the Pitt rivers
or collaborating with the rivers in the policy when the policy refers to collecting pieces,
even contemporary artworks,
a lot of the focus and prioritisation or protection in a way is given to the collectors rather than the artists themselves.
What is your opinion on that?
How do you think the museum official policy can better protect and respect the artists who make all of the objects in the museum's collections?
I think basically not speaking about the culture as if it were in the past tense some way to be able to involve the contemporary artists of the place.
Maybe that would be the conversation is that how much space is allocated for every culture
to have a modern representation present with all collections wherever it makes sense.
Let's say you have a hundred and fifty different cultures represented. You may have 300.
You may. You may have nine. I'm not quite sure how many or how you would categorise a different culture relative in whatever that criteria is.
Boy, if you could have something contemporary whenever possible.
Obviously, some cultures have turned into other cultures over millennia and millennia,
and it's hard to say who's entered by the Indian today, you know? I probably totally distorting that the new policy really,
really put much more emphasis on on the story of the place of contemporary artists that are making work.
So it's there's so much good things that policies are working.
Towards I couldn't quite give much more feedback other than what I just keep doing it and maybe try to get as much as much contemporary
representation intermingled with it so that the viewer can kind of see a sense of continuity between the past and the present,
as opposed to always thinking about things in the past. Yeah, it's been. We spoke this morning with Dr Bowditch, who's at the the U of T,
and she was talking sort of a lot about how practise is very easy to change and because, you know, you just do it.
And that's one of the things that the Pitt Rivers has been up to. But the policy that's currently implemented, it is open access.
Everyone can see it. It's been it's been reviewed sort of every five years.
But thus far, the only sort of mention of contemporary their practise is, you know,
fantastic was that or at least it's as good as any museum in the beginnings of decolonisation can be.
But so far, their policy, which any museum can see or anybody on the internet can see it only ever mentions
contemporary artists very briefly in their sort of collections practise section.
But the history of the museum is very much focussed on the British colonial administrator, the one who went and collected it.
And I think in some sections they mentioned about 14 different people who actually collected them.
But they don't mention any of the people who actually sort of made it.
And they do refer, I think, to one colonial administrator as a distinguished colonial administrator,
which is maybe not the word you want to use in conjunction with Colonial.
Great. Great. Great, great. Great. Sounds to me like so much of that is almost like there's just some tweaks that need to be done in the terminology.
I guess it's so close. It's so much more improved than it was even, I would guess, fifty years ago or 20 years ago.
That's my guess. And the fact that you guys are asking these very questions means that it's only going to prove more.
I'm so thrilled that you're happy with what the Pitt Rivers is doing because I know we can always do more,
but I'm so thrilled that you're happy with it.
If we were to rewrite and of course we will, because it's atrocious their history section, I can say that on the record.
But if they were going to rewrite the history section with sort of a more nuanced understanding, how would you like to see Hawaii represented?
Maybe the thing that I would reflect on and I really haven't come across this level of sensitivity through any, any kind of museum.
I've worked with the Smithsonian. They're doing some good stuff.
But this level of self-awareness, as far as the museum goes, the museum understanding its own legacy.
It's an extension of the British Empire,
and that whole conversation is so much that I feel really confident that whatever things get changed or whatever things get rewritten,
particularly about what we are going to have a much deeper representation of indigenous and native voices and feedback.
I feel really confident that that whatever you guys do come up with is going to
really strongly reflect just based upon the questions you're already asking people,
you know, whatever whatever they present is going to be really close to being fairly strongly representative of things that would be coming from very,
very glad to hear it. Because like I said, there's a lot of horror stories, especially in North America,
with the sort of indigenous engagement with museums not going very well or not being properly representative.
And so you worked with the Smithsonian, which is super, super cool.
I love that.
And how did you find that their policies towards sort of representing indigenous cultures as being very present and alive compared to the rivers,
I mean, might have to do a little tweaking on air with a Smithsonian there, but I would love to.
I would love to know how the two experiences kind of compare it and how their policies better reflected that,
or how ours could improve as well or practises if you're not familiar with the policy.
Well, I would definitely. I would definitely speak directly to the the actual events that I've done with them.
One series that I did in 2010, I believe, and it was at the museum for the Native American.
It was called this transformer exhibit. What it was was I did a whole piece on Hawaiian futurism or Hawaiian science fiction,
and they included that as a kind of an interventionist piece, talking about the status of the indigenous peoples of the Americas today.
They did a whole piece about kind of indigenous futurism, which was really a lot of fun, right?
Because it says native peoples are still alive.
All these cultures are resurging, and that indigenous knowledge has application for mainstream audiences today.
So sort of like the people that have been so oppressed, so to speak, have have wisdom to help the people that have been oppressing them.
I mean, I aspire to see the time when we don't talk about things in terms of oppressor and the press,
you know, victims and victimisers because, you know, ultimately, hopefully those will follow.
Once enough time has passed, but the dusty ceiling,
as has happened and what's enough understanding conversations have happened between different cultures.
I then went on and did a couple other events called Cultural Labs.
One of them was in Manhattan and another one was in Honolulu. And this was in 2016 and 2017,
and the whole thing was the US speaking about Asian Pacific Islander cultures being on the
cutting edge of a lot of different kinds of social sciences and different things like that.
Smithsonian puts a lot of work in striking about culture as a living,
breathing thing that you can interact with, that you're going to be surprised by that.
There are so many more parts to a culture than we get a chance to see.
And that often giving the opportunity for cultures themselves to speak through their contemporary audiences through their contemporary artists.
As far as Hawaii, for example, I can now share my culture in all kinds of new ways.
But again, I'm always very interested in science fiction and fantasy and all these different things so I can talk about my
Hawaiian culture in these new genre that allows them to get to people who like science fiction about the sea,
for example. Or as the work I did with Pitt Rivers was,
I did a deep dive Hawaiian mythology and my take on one part of Hawaii mythology that wasn't really quite explored.
But I'm given the freedom as an indigenous person to say I'm continuing the work of my ancestors.
This is a continuation of what was done a thousand years ago.
I'm continuing to do it today. And, you know, having whole exhibits based upon viewing indigenous culture,
moving into the future and giving the opportunity for indigenous peoples to share wisdom that has immediate application for contemporary audiences.
So the Smithsonian put a whole whole event all around,
showing how indigenous wisdom has application for contemporary audiences so the peer reviewers can do something similar,
obviously, but not quite on the scale of Smithsonian.
And you folks already are in a respect that I'm having the opportunity to share my work and to share with you folks today.
It's so great to hear that your experience with the Pitt Rivers has been so good.
And I think that's also why we think it's very important that the policy the official Pitt Rivers policy
reflects the practises that the Pitt Rivers is implementing now that we're sort of striving for.
Yeah, there's an interesting community sort of partnership that the Pitt Rivers has with the with the Haida in B.C.
I'm not entirely sure of the entire logistics of it,
but the gist of it is that a group of Haida come to the rivers to sort of observe their ancestors culture.
Do you see sort of a programme like that being written into the museum's policies thus far?
There's no real sort of opportunity for engagement written into the policies, especially when, of course, the progress is so far away from Hawaii.
So do you see sort of a way that the Pitt Rivers could include that in their policies,
a programme or a set policy where Indigenous Hawaiians, who do want to come to the museum and engage with their artefacts be paid to do so.
Or if there are ways that the policy could sort of include that a little bit better actual like physical engagement?
Absolutely. I think that if there could be, you know, whether it would be something on a smaller scale than what the Smithsonian does,
but like an opportunity for kind of like a space or time for native peoples to gather and share kind of like a cultural workshop or a culture lab,
kind of the thing where they invite, you know, throughout the year,
either guests or they have it as part of a big workshop or a big event where you have individuals,
people who works are at the museum be present to do cultural engagement on some form.
But I think the happy medium is I'm doing zoom conversations, you know, and having,
you know, presentations where you can physically five people there then as well.
You could just, you know, we could have these sort of conversations with the partner, their audience, the folks that would visit the museum.
But I think I would love to come and visit. So I'd be, I mean, like, I think, every opportunity to go to England.
But yeah, I think that there is a there's definitely that opportunity.
And for some reason,
there's something that's coming up in my mind now that I'm just going to mention that if there's some way for there to be some kind of connexion,
whether this is an event or whether this is something that is a collaboration, maybe this is what's in my mind right now.
Immediately, I'm thinking, like,
what would be wonderful would be for there to be some kind of a collaboration with indigenous artists could be a miracle.
It could be some kind of a piece or something or some kind of a. Is that having a conversation about the indigenous needs of the peoples of England?
You go back two thousand years. Right. You go back two thousand years and England, right?
You have you have people that were they were island people, right?
It's a big island, but it's an island that island culture, right?
So finding some kind of a cool way to remind the British audience, the British public, that when we talk about the land, we talk about the oceans,
when we talk about our call,
our gods and our belief systems allowed us to live in relative harmony with each other and our natural ecosystems where the River Museum is.
I mean, you go back a thousand years, you have examples,
you have examples of people we're living who made their clothes, who know where their clothes come from, you know?
So maybe what I would love to see is for the Pitt Rivers to actually look at the
idea that indigenous and indigenous wisdom is right outside the front door.
And that would be wonderful to actually have the focus on having native people come to and worked
with folks who consider themselves to be connected with England's indigenous cultures and practises.
So something to say that actually to almost get the distinguished collector part of English culture, move that aside and actually say,
we want to connect indigenous to remind that all of these artefacts that we see come from a different parts of the world.
It would be wonderful to have them connect with ancient England.
Ancient Hopi, ancient England need to meet up so that we that would be kind of a fun thing.
Well, I think the US has always been sort of taking suggestions, but as of right now on this podcast, we're taking suggestions and I love that,
especially since in the policy in particular,
there's not really there's a big separation between what is sort of considered to be indigenous and what is considered to be modern.
So there's not really it's a fairly big divide that they try and put forward that if something is indigenous, it cannot also be modern.
So what I absolutely love about that is it's sort of breaking down the whole idea of modernity
entirely and bringing it into just we all have this sort of connexion through our land to each other.
And if we take away all of sort of qualifying factors that the museum tries to impose on us, there's a lot of similarities.
And I I just love that I think it's what the museum really should be all about, and also that indigenous cultures are not dead.
They're not in the past. They are also modern. Absolutely.
You know, just try to simplify it as much as possible. And my I mean, I know oversimplification is dangerous because then we lose things.
But it's sometimes it's easier to fit it into our pocket because easier to kind of remember these simple ideas.
And to me, I've been meditating on this a lot is that contemporary cultures, modern cultures,
we seem to be able to solve all kinds of problems like we can solve technological problems.
But there's one major problem that we have been working on for millennia,
and native cultures have found a way to work through this, which is ego, greed, the desire to covet or conquer.
There's all these things that are happening on current events right now.
You know, you have all of these wars that are happening in our world today, and we don't understand what it means to be human.
Now we understand how to build buildings. We know how to make aeroplanes.
But it seems like the things that live in the buildings and the things that fly in the aeroplanes, we don't know what they are.
So it's almost like modern cultures can solve all of these modern issues.
But native people needed to do what Hawaiians needed to do was you can, for example, you can have a great canoe.
But if everybody on the canoe is fighting with each other and they don't know how to get along, that canoe isn't going to go anywhere.
So I think native cultures have solutions for the human conundrum.
How did ancient cultures, what are ancient laws, what the ancient laws look like, what the ancient societal systems look like,
maybe including that part of the conversation understanding what it means to be human is something that we're woefully behind.
If compassion is a technology, you know, we're way behind on that.
We're advancing in all these other areas except for what it means to be human.
And again, I think that's where the understanding ancient cultures and how they lived,
if they lived in harmony and how they lived in harmony is an important lesson that we can take.
And generally speaking, you know, these beautiful artefacts we can infer from these artefacts the help of the culture that the artefacts came from.
Beautiful art came from times eras in societies when there was peace.
Right? Not always, obviously, but.
Societies are in relative peace. The artists have time to work.
You know, it's a big, broad ideas and hopefully some parts of these are useful, of course.
And I think that pretty well leads into the one final thing that I sort of wanted to ask about is that the policy,
as it stands, it's very clinical, it's very object focussed and even colonial focussed.
But it doesn't sort of take into account what you're talking about, sort of the emotional and the human connexion and the side of that.
So can you tell us a little bit,
how do you think the policy can account for that and how important that it is for museums to sort of be places of emotion and spirituality as well?
Well, I would love to see perhaps maybe some opportunity for some virtual reality the idea of image maps rooms.
So having over and projected on all four walls would be what it would be like to be an ancient Hawaii.
You know, a thousand years ago, you're on the beach, you look around,
you're looking at the land and you're looking at healthy rich soils, you're looking at amazing coconut groves and everything.
And then you're looking at the ocean.
You see, I look at the ocean, you'd see all the canoes that are going out there and you're and you're saying like,
this is an example of a healthy culture. And this is what it looks like when a when a people of that help and that, you know,
may be sitting next to you or just off on the wall or somebody and they're making an artefact,
you know, they're making copper and you see that they're smiling and they're having a conversation with somebody and it's like,
you get to be an astral Voyager or you get to be a time traveller and you get to sit down and then you hear the noises
and maybe there's a little perfume or something smells like some of our native flowers was wafting through that.
But if that isn't as feasible, or I mean, if that is something that has, that is as doable sooner.
I love dioramas, you know, having little scenes and museums do this right.
They'll have like the village diorama. You kind to see all the little people.
But that would look like that may not be as strong as an immersive space.
And talking about this idea of what it was like for a native person pre contact before anyone to write to, it's kind of like to interrupt a culture.
What did the culture look like and what did it feel like for those native people when their worldview was healthy,
right when they were in their space and when they were in their time? I think something like that would be wonderful,
and for that to be sort of a rotating exhibit where there's different cultures are represented at different times
of the year and you get basically a day in the life of what it was like for those indigenous people to be born,
to live and to die in a time when they knew who they were, they knew why they were.
They knew how they were. They knew when they were, you know, they did what they were, why they were.
But it's a better way. It kind of put things back into context that the museum is not storytelling, right?
It becomes that the museum is like a stage. It becomes a platform for the native people to speak for themselves.
It's important to have a platform, but it's important to have a stage.
It's important for these stories to be shared around the world, and I personally think, you know,
when I think about how information gets shared, I look at our native plants and I look at plants.
In general, plants make lots of lots and lots of seeds, and they're not too picky about who's going to share their seeds.
If people want to take my seeds, go for it, because if I share my seeds, I know I'm going to live on.
So just based upon that simple principle, I believe cultures need to be shared and perpetuated.
But that plant also needs to be taken care of, and we have to take care of the plants we have at the same time.
Prepare for the new plants, giving people an experience of a day in the life of an indigenous person that where the artefacts
came from that put the artefacts back and you're actually putting them back virtually.
You put the artefacts back virtually because you're actually taking the person from the museum and
you're bringing the person to the place as opposed to just bringing the objects to the people.
That would be a wonderful next step, I think, is to have immersive experiences that let the culture speak for itself.
I think that's such a great point. That's also something that we talked about in one of our other interviews with Julian Zahida,
artist about this more immersive experience with artefacts,
with the museum's collections and sort of having that interaction with them so that they're not just behind glass windows and
how that more respects the objects agency and then lets it speak for itself and helps the culture also live and be perpetuated.
Yeah. Awesome. And even. That's the augmented reality.
I guess there's all these different ways you could use to do it,
but you it by holding up your phone or something and you cease and actually a native person there in your museum making couple or making something.
So, yeah, any any way that it's doable, any way that it's possible, it would be wonderful for that to be the next, the next stage and understanding.
Awesome. Well, we want to thank you just so much for coming to talk to us today.
I've learnt a whole lot and it's been so nice to meet you and thank you for a lot of very poignant stuff that we can use for this podcast.
It's just been so fantastic. Yes, thank you so much.
Absolutely my pleasure. So nice to meet you. Thanks to you all. Take care.
Aloha. That was the Rivers Museum's Matters of Policy podcast produced by Betty Woodhouse.
Yet Boom Snake Man Alexis Boyer and Bobble Hat Sound Music by Jack Forcett.
Voiceover Baiju who let a special thank you to Muranga Thompson, Iceland and the Millet Exchange.