Keywords: Mixed Reality; Artistic Research; Embodiment; Ecological Thinking; Site-Specific Performance; Cemetery<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The purpose of this research is to share examples of how to integrate ecological thinking into performance-making processes, with specific attention to performances that use augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) technologies. The aim is to identify embodied composition techniques that are relevant when working with technology and sustainability themes. The research contributes to articulating distinct artistic practices, relevant to practitioners and scholars in artistic research, technological design, and performance studies. Here, ecological thinking refers not only to environmental concern but also to an awareness of the interconnectedness of humans, technologies, and environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The exploration is driven by an urge to engage critically with how \u2013 and even if \u2013 one could create performances that involve technology in a climate-changed world. The current global ecological crises (IPCC 2023) intersect with economic, political and social issues to such an extent that it has been referred to as a polycrisis (Fridolfsson et al. 2025, 7). In response, digital technologies are presented as both a cause and cure to this crisis, but as a performance maker who works with technology, the situation prompts a critical reflection on what I contribute to the world with my performances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Performance can offer ways to sensitise and to engage politically through aesthetic and poetic means. In fact, artistic expression can reveal unexpected points of connection and provide audiences with a personal, embodied way to encounter the ecological situation in all its complexity. This potential invites us as makers to attend not only to what<\/em> stories we tell, but also to how<\/em> we tell them through technology. These concerns arose during the development of my MR Walks, site-specific performances in public spaces where audiences use their smartphone and headphones to access digital layers of sound, film and interactive 3D animation composed in collaboration with my team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An artistic research method was employed (Barrett & Bolt 2010; Slager 2021), positioning practice at the centre of both the research process and the development of new knowledge. To do so, I combined a critical reflection on the artistic practices employed in creating the MR performance Ashes to Ashes<\/em> with an exploration of how ecological thinking informed its artistic choices. Through the research, I revisited the MR composition practices and techniques I had previously articulated in my PhD (Hedemyr 2023). In doing so, the topic was approached from both practitioner and researcher perspectives, tending towards a theory of practice rather than a position of critical spectatorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MR is an umbrella term for experiences\/technologies that combine physical reality with a layer of digital information and media. It mixes sensory and conceptual elements externally in the world, as well as in the minds and imaginations of the users. These technologies, also known as AR, extended reality (XR) and immersive media, present not only technical but also performative and world-making possibilities and challenges. In recent years, an increasing number of artists and performance-makers have explored their potential within the arts (see, for example, Weijdom 2017; Benford & Giannachi 2011; Bolter et al. 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n My background as a choreographer informs how I work with MR technologies. While technology in performance has a long history (Salter 2010), current craft discussions of MR technologies tend to focus on the functionality of the technology and on how the phone interface merges the virtual and the real, often reducing the human body to a brain, a finger, and an eye. Approached from a performance perspective, however, the body takes centre stage. I propose that the body <\/em>is the experiential interface through which the virtual, the physical, and the imaginary become real. I use MR technologies as a performance format to create immersive, site-specific experiences. My approach can be described as mixing realities by combining theatrical and choreographic devices with MR technologies. It is a form of montage technique that triangulates the embodied audience member, the digital MR media via a mobile device and the site, with the aim of evoking somatic and kinaesthetic responses, making the experience felt in the body to enable a deeper sensorial engagement with the site and the work\u2019s content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The practical work I will share, Av jord \u00e4r du kommen \/ Ashes to Ashes<\/em>, is an MR walk for cemeteries exploring time, distance, presence, and leaving. It opened in 2025 and was developed over two years by the author and a team of artists and technologists. For a full credit list, please see: www.marikahedemyr.com\/av-jord<\/a>. The performance, which is 50 minutes long, is a personal experience and meditation on how we are all part of common cycles, a reflection on the legacy we leave behind (efterm\u00e4le<\/em> in Swedish and Danish) when we become part of the Earth as soil again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A trailer of the work is available at: vimeo.com\/1087487716<\/a>, and the following offers a brief overview of the piece: At a starting point in the cemetery, the audience meets Marika Hedemyr, who tells the story of Theia, an ancient planet that collided with Earth and formed the moon. No remains of the planet have previously been found in the solar system, but a new theory suggests that remnants of Theia are partially intact and buried under our feet. Marika has found a way to talk to Theia using a phone and a magic button. The audience opens the app and connects with Theia by entering a field of signals manifesting as a glittering AR cloud. Then, through voice, sound and AR animations, Theia guides the audience to discover the place by walking around, while also telling her story: about how she is named after the Greek goddess who gives gold and silver their brilliance; about how we are all made of minerals and are part of the Earth\u2019s cycle; about her dream of being a tree to be both above and below the Earth\u2019s crust at the same time; and about her desire to find out what happened to the moon, her legacy, which is in constant orbit. The final scene is an interactive AR scene in which each audience member can leave a wish for their own legacy (efterm\u00e4le<\/em>). The audience then returns to the starting point, is offered a glass of water and Marika is available for conversation for those who would like to talk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When critically reflecting on the performance-making process, three embodied composition practices emerged as particularly relevant when working with technology and ecological themes: critical proximity<\/em>, the what and the how of the subject matter<\/em> and corporeal listening<\/em>. With these practices as lenses for the analysis, I will share how they contributed to new insights, decisions and unexpected shifts in the performance-making process. The practices will be referred to as techniques, as a technique holds practical knowledge that can be shared, taught and circulated among practitioners (Spatz 2017), and it thereby constitutes a research basis that contributes to the development of the field. A more in-depth discussion of these techniques and other central concepts in my practice can be found in the PhD thesis and book Mixed Reality in Public Space<\/em> (Hedemyr 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first technique is critical proximity<\/em>: both a practice and a creative stance, especially useful when working with technology. It is an embodied artistic technique (Hedemyr 2023, 230) inspired by Manifesto Antrop\u00f3fago<\/em> [The Cannibalist Manifesto<\/em>] (de Andrade 1991\/1928), which involves working with<\/em> in critical and transformative ways. Consequently, it is not about keeping a detached distance from the situation to develop a critical take. Instead, it is about going in with your full body and working from within to challenge and change the situation. Bruno Latour (2005), who discusses critical proximity, argues that gaining proximity to a situation enables us to act from the very space in which politics takes place. In our present time, with its entanglement of science, life, technology and politics, it offers a way to play critically with worldviews from within.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After a decade of working with MR technologies, I have become acutely aware of the darker sides of mobile phone production and use, from the mining of rare metals to the vast energy demands of server infrastructures. The phone is far from a neutral tool; it is deeply entangled in political, social and economic interests (Zuboff 2019). I reached a point where I found it troubling that my practice contributed to this development. To paraphrase Haraway (2016), I chose to stay with the trouble, using the phone itself to address these issues artistically, with both seriousness and humour. Haraway (2016) reminds us that learning to live and die together on a damaged planet is part of imagining more liveable futures. Out of this reflection emerged The Element Series<\/em>, a new series of MR performances engaging with questions of how to coexist sustainably with the body of the Earth, including how to create respectful relationships for peaceful coexistence among humans. Ashes to Ashes<\/em>, the first work in the series, explores the element of earth\/soil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critical proximity was particularly helpful in the process of articulating the conceptual starting point for the Ashes to Ashes<\/em>, which became, as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The smallest ingredient that makes up our mobile digital devices – minerals and matter coming from the Earth, are also the building blocks of our human body. From this perspective, the human body and the mobile phone are one.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Working from this statement and the element earth\/soil enabled the phone to be part of the storyworld \u2013 like a character \u2013 instead of only a mediating technology or screen at which to look. For example, when developing the script and dramaturgy, I aimed to choreograph a situation that shifted the perspective to geological time. In the explorative phase of the production, I encountered new research about the planet Theia (Yuan et al. 2023) and in the process, Theia emerged as a character in the performance. From her perspective, everything is simply minerals in geological time scales. In the middle of the performance, she says, \u201cFrom my perspective, you, me, the mobile phone and all the stones here are one and the same. We\u2019re all part of planet Earth, just in different forms, at different times\u201d (Hedemyr 2025, 14). She refers to the phone as \u201cyour metal-stone in your hand, your shiny little box of minerals\u201d (Hedemyr 2025, 12). In the process, I intended to get the phone to such a position that it would actually \u2013 in the performance world \u2013 be understood as the same as the audience\u2019s body and planet Earth. The aim was to create sensory experiences that reveal how we and our mobile devices are intertwined in the Earth\u2019s material cycles, inviting reflection on what we leave behind for generations to come. One audience member was surprised how quick and easily she adopted a perspective completely different from what she was used to. Another shared that the performance gave her a chance to come to terms with her phone, with which she had a love\u2013hate relationship due to her dependence on it. Several others reported that they found themselves in complete timelessness and experienced the cemetery anew, which opened a space-time for reflections on life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another example of how I employed the technique of critical proximity was the choice to create the performance for a cemetery. In the process of choosing a site, I realised that the original choice of an \u201cempty\u201d white cube gallery would require much theatrical framing to arrive at the more existential aspects of the theme. Instead, I decided to design the work for cemeteries, as they are non-commercial public spaces where the tangible relationship among bodies, the earth and time is both seen and felt. As a borderland between the dead and the living, as well as between grief and hope, this site provides a critical proximity to the theme of legacy that could be felt by the audience in an embodied way, through lived, bodily experience rather than just intellectually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In summary, as maker, adopting a position of critical proximity enables an embodied exploration of the political layers of the site and the technologies. In the performance-making process, one can stage the tension between competing worldviews and perspectives and allow the audience to sense it during the performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second practice to highlight is the technique of the what and the how of the subject matter<\/em> (Hedemyr 2023, 224), which brings attention to not only which<\/em> stories we tell, but also how<\/em> we tell them. While this could be discussed using the terms \u201cform\u201d and \u201ccontent,\u201d the terms \u201cwhat\u201d and \u201chow\u201d are more useful in relation to technology, as they direct attention more directly to design and composition practices. Technology is not only a new tool; it also shapes the kinds of worlds we imagine and create, both in real life and in our performances. The technique invites us to consider what the technologies<\/em>, interfaces<\/em> and interactions<\/em> themselves convey, as well as to ask what worldviews, subjects and ways of being they propose. It may be that the content, the what<\/em>, says one thing while the interactions and technologies, the how<\/em>, imply something else. For example, if a digital interactive work is about tender love, but the method of engaging with the technology requires forceful and violent movements, such as hitting and throwing, one may ask if this is done by mistake or to create a dramatic effect. Paying attention to the what<\/em> and the how<\/em> offers a possibility to check that your work represents your intentions, values and vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One example from Ashes to Ashes<\/em> is the choice of technology for the audience: they use their own phone and headphones, downloading an app to participate. However, providing all the technological equipment onsite can be a choice that promotes accessibility, as it enables everyone to engage in the work without any preparations. Nevertheless, considering the theme of the work and the ecological aspect, we did not want to purchase a complete set of new technologies for the production. Furthermore, and even more importantly, because the theme played with the idea that your body and your phone are one and the same when seen from a geological time-perspective, it made more sense for each person to use their own phone, to which they already had a close relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another example is the process of exploring the type of interactions that would be part of the work. I started with the idea of using the phone\u2019s screen as an active driver during the performance, but as I developed the work, it became clear that holding and interacting with the screen required a very closed and narrow-focused body posture. This was contrary to what the cemetery itself invites when you walk around: an open body posture, one allowing you to lift your gaze and look around, stroll around in a slow tempo and take in the sounds, sights and pathways. The exploration had two consequences in the process. First, it resulted in the use of audio for large parts of the performance, like an audio walk, as this enabled the audience to walk around and look at what they wanted, without having to interact with the phone\u2019s screen. We retained three interactive AR scenes and experimented to find the right expressions for these interactions. Second, we explored interactions that were connected not to the phone but to the place: picking up a small stone or grain of gravel, placing one\u2019s hand on a tree and listening, and sitting on a bench. These types of interactions were more in line with the conceptual starting point, that is the what<\/em> of the work. The final work included interactions with the phone\u2019s screen, as well as with objects and phenomena in the world around the audience member. After the performance, it was common for audience members to want to show and discuss the stone they picked, with one person having said, \u201cExperiencing and sensing time in this way, through stones and minerals, is something that will stay with me for a long time\u201d. In the process of developing the interactions, we used practices from both interaction design and immersive theatre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The final technique to highlight is corporeal listening<\/em> (Hedemyr 2023, 205), a technique that focuses on involving your own sensory and reflective body-mind in the process of exploration and composition. It is about listening through your body, which is a common method of working among, for example, dancers. It is based on somatic engagement, drawing on Petra Kuppers\u2019 (2011) theory of somatics as a relational practice that attends to relations, context, history, politics, power, and affect. I define corporal listening as an embodied labour of attentiveness that requires an ethics of nuances. The technique requires somatic awareness, combined with reflective and critical engagement with body politics and context. Central is the understanding that the material exists in you, the place and the technology. There is nothing neutral about place, technology or corporeal listening, because when we listen, what do we hear? Is it sound, noise or silence? What we notice is informed by our professional training, as well as by our life experiences with, for example, class, gender and culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When developing Ashes to Ashes<\/em>, I employed corporeal listening in the creation process, and I aimed to create a state of corporeal listening for the audience. During the first year of exploration, I spent hours and hours walking at different cemeteries to explore the material\u2019s potential, including how a cemetery could be engaged as a performance site in a manner that is both respectful and evocative. In the final production phase leading to the opening in April 2025, the team and I tried a new version of the work every week. We recorded sounds and listened on site, programmed and made changes on site, and edited the voice script while listening and walking. This enabled us to understand instantly what worked and what needed to be changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some examples of how it influenced our choices are as follows. All the walking in cemeteries inspired a wish to let the audience maintain an open body posture so they could fully experience the place. It also resulted in the emergence of Theia as a character and guide. At first, she only appeared in one scene, but in the final version, she is the only character you meet. Though encountered only through her voice, she guides and keeps company with the audience, shaping their journey through the performance. When writing the voice actor script, corporeal listening also resulted in a careful composition of all pauses in the audio. With a trial-and-error approach I tested on site how many seconds was needed to get things to land in the body of the listener. The pauses became just as important as the talking. For example, in one of the first scenes, the audience is invited to walk around and explore the place, and the script for Theia\u2019s voice via the headphones is as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do you hear the sound of your feet? (pause 8 sec) The audience only hears Theia in the headphones; they never see her. In the storyworld, she is a planet buried deep at the centre of planet Earth that can connect via the minerals in the phone, and she asks the audience if they could lend their senses to her so she can experience how things are above the Earth. After the performance, several audience members shared that this process of lending her their senses made them pay attention to the place and their own sensorial impressions in a more attentive way than they normally would.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a final remark on the three techniques discussed, I want to highlight that through corporeal listening, one can often notice and understand things that can be difficult to put into words. These non-verbal insights are important materials for your performance-making process, as material to work with and as information that can guide your artistic choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The findings of this artistic research show that an embodied approach to MR performance can invite both makers and audiences to attend to ecological relationships, that artistic practices can unsettle technological narratives and that audience engagement in an interactive work can make visible the entanglement among bodies, devices and environments. MR technologies offer a specific way of engaging with the world by combining reality and digital layers. In this context, reflecting on how<\/em> performances are created becomes essential for responsibly integrating ecological thinking into artistic practice. With examples from the creation process of the MR performance Ashes to Ashes<\/em>, three embodied techniques were identified and introduced: critical proximity<\/em>, the what and the how of the subject matter<\/em> and corporeal listening<\/em>. These artistic techniques demonstrate that digital technologies are never neutral; their meaning emerges from the decisions of the project team. Furthermore, by working from an embodied position that engages multiple senses, performance can invite heightened attention in the audience, creating space for both reflection and sensory experience. Art and performance strategies can reimagine and activate our relationships with the beings, materials and technologies with which we coexist. In this lies the potential for MR performance, through embodied practice, to contribute artistically to sustainable futures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barrett, Estelle, and Barbara Bolt, eds. 2010. Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry<\/em>. London & New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Benford, Steve, and Gabriella Giannachi. 2011. Performing Mixed Reality<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bolter, David J., Maria Engberg, and Blair MacIntyre. 2021. Reality Media: Augmented and Virtual Reality<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n de Andrade, Oswald. 1991\/1928. \u201cCannibalist Manifesto by Oswald de Andrade.\u201d Latin American Literary Review<\/em> 19(38, Jul\u2013Dec): 38\u201347. www.jstor.org\/stable\/20119601<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fridolfsson, Charlotte, Ylva Gisl\u00e9n, Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren, Carolina Pettersson, Lina Rahm, and \u00c5sa St\u00e5hl. 2025. \u201cV\u00e4lkommen till framtiden.\u201d Fronesis<\/em> (86\u201387: Framtider): 6\u201325. fronesis.nu\/nummer\/framtider<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene<\/em>. Duke University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hedemyr, Marika. 2023. \u201cMixed Reality in Public Space: Expanding Composition Practices in Choreography and Interaction Design.\u201d Doctoral thesis, monograph, School of Arts and Communication Dissertation Series, Malm\u00f6 University Press (7). doi.org\/10.24834\/isbn.9789178773237<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hedemyr, Marika. 2025. Script Av jord \u00e4r du kommen \/Ashes to Ashes<\/em>. Swedish and English. Marika Hedemyr Projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. <\/em>Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. www.ipcc.ch\/report\/ar6\/syr\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kuppers, Petra, ed. 2011. Somatic Engagament<\/em>. Oakland and Philadelphia: ChainLinks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Latour, Bruno. 2005. Critical Distance or Critical Proximity? A dialogue in Honor of Donna Haraway<\/em>. http:\/\/www.bruno-latour.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/P-113-HARAWAY.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Salter, Chris. 2010. Entangled: Technology and the transformation of performance<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Slager, Henk, ed. 2021. The Postresearch Condition<\/em>. MaHKUscript Series. Utrecht: Metropolis M Books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Spatz, Ben. 2017. \u201cEmbodied Research: A Methodology.\u201d Liminalities: A Journal of Performance Studies<\/em> 13(2): 1\u201331. http:\/\/liminalities.net\/13-2\/index.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Weijdom, Joris. 2017. \u201cMixed Reality and the Theatre of the Future. Arts and New Technologies.\u201d Fresh Perspectives <\/em>(6): 1\u201380. https:\/\/www.ietm.org\/en\/resources\/fresh-perspectives\/fresh-perspectives-6-mixed-reality-and-the-theatre-of-the-future-arts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yuan, Qian, Mingming Li, Steven J. Desch, Byeongkwan Ko, Hongping Deng, Edward J. Garnero, Travis S. J. Gabriel, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Yoshinori Miyazaki, Vincent Eke, and Paul D. Asimow. 2023. \u201cMoon-forming impactor as a source of Earth\u2019s basal mantle anomalies.\u201d Nature<\/em> 623(7985): 95\u201399. doi.org\/10.1038\/s41586-023-06589-1<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power<\/em>. Profile Books.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Abstract This workshare explores how ecological thinking can inform creative processes in performances using Augmented […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-strand-ii-ecological-performance-making"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1534,"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62\/revisions\/1534"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nivel.teak.fi\/carpa9\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Research approach: Artistic research and a choreographic take on mixed reality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/dev.wrkshp.fi\/carpa9\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Hedemyr1-Glitter-MarikaHedemyr2025.webp\")
![\"Audience](\"https:\/\/dev.wrkshp.fi\/carpa9\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Hedemyr2-People-Meeting-JeannetteGinslov-1024x576.webp\")
Composition practices and embodied techniques<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Critical proximity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"Two](\"https:\/\/dev.wrkshp.fi\/carpa9\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Hedemyr3-Walking-JeannetteGinslov-1024x576.webp\")
The what and the how of the subject matter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/dev.wrkshp.fi\/carpa9\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Hedemyr4-Man-Tree-JeannetteGinslov2025.webp\")
Corporeal listening<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/dev.wrkshp.fi\/carpa9\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Hedemyr5-Collage-MarikaHedemyr2025.webp\")
\n
Does it feel soft or hard? What you are walking on? (pause 45 sec)
There are many who lie beneath the surface of the Earth. Like I do, thousands of kilometres below you. (pause 20 sec)
(thoughtful) Hmm\u2026 A lot of names. I wonder what all the different sizes and shapes of the stones really mean. (pause 12 sec)<\/em><\/p>\n(Hedemyr 2025, 13)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nConclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n