From the Archives

Posted on April 3, 2013 by mollygleeson

The Penn Museum Archives is an incredible resource for us here at the museum.

A view into the Penn Museum Archives

When we begin working on objects in the conservation lab, we carry out preliminary research, which often includes searching for related materials in the Archives. Among the materials we may be interested in are archaeological field notes, letters between curators and archaeologists or collectors about the acquisition of specific artifacts, and old photographs.

Recently, Senior Archivist Alex Pezzati scanned some images for me, including this one, a shot of the Egyptian “Mummy Gallery” in 1935.

I was excited to see some of the artifacts we’re working on in the Artifact Lab right now in this photo. Can you pick some of them out? In the image below I’ve circled some of them in red.

The objects circled in red above are either being worked on in the Artifact lab or are on display in our accompanying exhibit

These old exhibition photographs can be extremely valuable to conservators. Not only does this particular image tell us that certain artifacts were definitely on display, and when (which may not be recorded elsewhere), but it also shows us how they were displayed. In some cases, seeing the way that artifacts were previously displayed may help to explain damage, such as excessive fading on one side or adhesive residues left behind by an old mount. We can often make good guesses about this type of damage, but it’s always nice to have some proof!

What particularly excited me about this photograph is that it shows the coffin of Tawahibre in the gallery. We are currently working on this coffin in the lab, but it is still too fragile to separate the lid from the base to allow for examination of both pieces individually.

The coffin of Tawahibre in the Artifact Lab.

Just recently, Curator Dr. Jen Wegner was up in the lab and we were discussing the coffin and some of my observations, and she wondered out loud if the back had any text written on it. I had wondered the same thing myself but I knew that until we carried out further work, we wouldn’t be able to know.

BUT, since this 1935 photograph shows both the lid and the base of the coffin on display, we don’t have to wait any longer!

The lid and the base of Tawahibre’s coffin, side by side in the Mummy Gallery in 1935.

As you can see in the above image, there is writing on the back! Now only if we could just hasten the conservation treatment so we can examine it for ourselves…

Another thing that is useful about this image is that is shows that much of the damage we’re seeing on the coffin today was present in 1935. This includes both major structural damage and extensive paint loss in areas. It is likely that the coffin came into our collection with this damage, which is somehow reassuring to me. I will also note this in my documentation.

Tawahibre’s coffin in 1935 (left) and today (right). Much of the major damage we see today had already occurred by 1935. To highlight this, I’ve circled some of the damaged areas in red in both images.

We continue to plug away on the treatment of the coffin and we are hoping to soon reach the point where we can separate the lid. I will provide an update shortly about some of the more recent work we have been carrying out on this artifact!

New discoveries

Posted on March 22, 2013 by mollygleeson

When “In the Artifact Lab: Conservation of Egyptian Mummies” was envisioned, we knew that there were a lot of unknowns – the idea was that this would be a working lab, so we would be carrying out much of the work that normally goes on behind-the-scenes to prepare objects for exhibition, in full public view. Many of the artifacts selected for examination and conservation in the lab had not been examined very closely for a long time. What we did know is that we needed to do a whole lot more research, documentation, and conservation on these pieces before they would be ready for display.

We’re not just trying to look good-we’re actually working!

Anyone who has been following this blog knows that we have made several discoveries about some of these artifacts – the discovery of the fact that our mummy PUM I had a beaded shroud, for instance. Another artifact, or assemblage of artifacts actually, that we knew we’d be learning much more about is the outer coffin of Ahanakht.

One of the boards from Ahanakht’s outer coffin, showing the side covered with columns of Hieratic inscriptions.

We currently have 15 pieces (all dissembled) from this coffin up in the Artifact Lab, and 2 more are on exhibit. We also have Ahanakht’s inner coffin, which is assembled and on exhibit here on the 3rd floor of the museum as well.

Ahanakht’s inner coffin on exhibit in the museum

Previously on this blog we posted some photos of some of the smaller “coffin boards” – or at least, that’s what we thought they were. There are 4 of these smaller boards and they were acquired with the other pieces of the outer and inner coffins. They are made of the same wood, have similar bands of hieroglyphs on one side, and have similar construction methods as the larger boards.

3 smaller pieces previously thought to be part of the outer coffin

These boards haven’t required extensive conservation – so other than some examination and very minor treatment, most of the work on them so far has been curatorial.

Curator Dr. David Silverman has been working with Penn graduate student Leah Humphrey to transcribe and translate all of the inscribed text on the coffin boards. Dr. Silverman has determined from the text on 3 of the smaller boards that they are actually a part of a canopic box, not a coffin. These wooden containers usually were square in shape and held 4 jars, each of which had one of the 4 mummified parts of the deceased: the lungs, liver, stomach, and intestines. The 4th small board, however, remains problematic since its dimensions make it clear that it does not belong to either of the 2 coffins of Ahanakht. In addition, its size and the nature of the text inscribed on it, make it also clear that it is not part of the canopic box. Its text indicates that it is part of yet another coffin.

Examination of one of the canopic box pieces and the “mystery” board underway

Research progresses in the hopes that we can figure out where/what the 4th mystery piece is from. This particular project is a good example of how “In the Artifact Lab” is an exciting and sometimes perplexing work-in-progress.

A step a- “head”: improving storage for our mummified heads

Posted on February 16, 2013 by mollygleeson

As I mentioned previously, we have several mummified heads in the Artifact Lab. Luckily, all of them are stable and do not require much in the way of conservation treatment – instead we have focused on examination, documentation, and some light surface cleaning, and in one case, the removal of an old exhibit armature.

We have a lot of things going on at the moment, so thankfully, I’ve gotten some help with this work. A couple weeks ago we had a group of 5 undergraduate art conservation students from the University of Delaware in the lab – they spent the month of January interning in our department on a project focused on documenting and cleaning a group of Arctic boats in storage.

Ellen Nigro and Rebecca Selig condition reporting a kayak

They wrapped up that project a day early, and so on the last day of their internship, they got to work on something totally different – and several of them elected to help condition report one of the heads.

Rebecca Cruz, Emily Cummins, and David Brickhouse examining a mummified head

After fully documenting the heads and carrying out any necessary treatment, our main goal is to construct new storage mounts for these remains. Our Egyptian storage areas are fairly packed with artifacts, and because of this, many things are stored in a way that makes them hard to access or see without a lot of handling.

An example of artifacts wrapped nicely in acid-free tissue in a drawer – unfortunately, there is a lot of handling required to see these objects

New storage supports will improve access and provide better protection for these remains. Our plan is to make handling trays for the heads, which can then be housed within custom-made boxes.

An example of a handling tray, made using acid-free corrugated board and Volara polyethylene foam

I’m getting some help with this as well – Artifact Lab intern Melissa Miller has been working on the first tray and box.

Melissa working on creating a custom-made box for one of the heads

We will be sure to post photos once we’ve completed them!

Don’t just DO SOMETHING, SIT THERE!

Posted on February 3, 2013 by artifactlab

Artifact Lab Conservator Molly Gleeson, just sitting there (with laptop)

by Lynn Grant
Last month, Artifact Lab Conservator Molly Gleeson was talking about her experiences being the public face (and hands, and body) of Conservation at the Penn Museum to PACA, a group of Philadelphia Area conservators. She said that one of the occasionally difficult things about work in the ‘fishbowl’ is that visitors expect to see her “doing something” (ie., interacting directly with the mummies or other artifacts in the lab) and she worries about disappointing them when she’s just sitting at the computer or thinking quietly. I’ve noticed the same thing on my stints in the Artifact Lab (although Molly is the Main Attraction, the other Penn Museum conservators all spend time in the lab when Molly’s off).

Assistant Conservator Nina Owczarek, hard at work on the Artifact Lab computer, as seen through the glass enclosure.

But In the Artifact Lab: Conserving Egyptian Mummies isn’t meant as performance art; we want to give our visitors a real look at how conservation happens and that includes the fact that we don’t spend 100% of our time actually laying hands on ancient artifacts. Before a conservator does touch any object she’s working on, she’ll spend a lot of time:
• Examining the object carefully to see how is was made, how it was used, what’s happened to it over time, what needs fixing and (as importantly) what doesn’t.
• Writing up her findings. Conservators document everything we see, think, or do with regards to an object. This is essential for various reasons: other researchers may be interested in our observations; if the treatment doesn’t go as planned, knowing what was done will make it possible to undo; if the treatment is a success, knowing what was done makes it possible to apply the same knowledge to other objects. I often find that this process really helps clarify treatment issues in my own mind.
• Researching the artifact’s past and conservation research and treatments on other, similar artifacts. If you look at the books, blue binders in the seating corner of the Artifact Lab space or at some of these sites shown on the right sidebar, you’ll see examples of the kinds of resources we use every day. The Internet is a wonderful tool, as well. There are many online resources for conservators, especially a series of discussion groups where conservators all over the world pool their information about materials, treatment options, experience, etc.

And the ‘sitting time’ doesn’t end there. With a whole host of options for treatment at her fingertips, the conservators needs to spend time just thinking through all the possible results and repercussions of her active treatments. Many of the treatments carried out by conservators are not that difficult or complex (rolling a cotton swab across a surface isn’t rocket science) but the decision-making process behind choosing the treatment is why we need to spend years preparing to get into conservation training, years in that training, and continuing to learn every day of our working lives.

Conservators Julie Lawson (left) and Nina Owczarek, with intern Naomi Shohami (foreground) consulting over a laptop in the Artifact Lab.

So
• if you see the Artifact Lab conservator at the computer, she is probably still doing conservation. She could be: documenting her work; consulting other experts; researching web resources; writing a blog post(!); or even answering a question on our blog. Got a question? Post it here.
• If you see her talking to someone, she is probably still doing conservation. She could be: seeking advice or information from a colleague; teaching an intern; communicating a cool new finding; or asking them to contribute a blog post.
• If you see her just sitting or standing looking into thin air, she is probably still doing conservation. She could be: thinking about treatment options; deciding to consult a resource; considering the results of a recent treatment; or planning a blog post.

Of course, she could also be checking her Facebook page; calling a friend; making plans for lunch; or even just taking a rest because conservators are real people too and, even in the Artifact Lab, no-one is ‘on’ 100% of the time!

More about those beads

Posted on January 23, 2013 by mollygleeson

Hello fellow readers! My name is Melissa Miller and I am pleased to say I recently began interning in the Artifact Lab here at the Penn Museum. I am currently a junior at the University of Delaware studying art conservation and anthropology. Needless to say when I heard about the In the Artifact Lab project, I jumped at the opportunity to help out in any way I could. Who wouldn’t love the opportunity to work with 4,000 year old human remains and funerary objects?

Melissa working at the binocular microscope, as viewed from outside of the lab

So far I have spent my first two weeks here doing everything from making support cushions for PUM I’s chest wrappings to making impressions of scarab beetle amulets. Currently, I am examining the beads Molly and the other conservators found in PUM I’s coffin and remains. There are two kinds; tubular and circular. Molly also pointed out to me several areas on the leg and face wrappings of PUM I where there are distinctive impressions of beads in a diamond shaped pattern. This has led us to believe that PUM I had a beaded shroud! Beaded shrouds became popular in the 25^th dynasty and continued until the Roman period, and both men and women have been found with these decorations.

Being buried with a beaded shroud would have been very expensive due to cost of materials and labor, and imitations were sometimes made by painting the diamond pattern on the mummy or with a net of knotted string. It is evident, however, that PUM I had a real beaded shroud, which indicates that he was probably wealthy in his lifetime. This surprised me because PUM I is in pretty poor condition and his coffin (which admittedly may not be his original burial case) has little to no decoration.

Three tubular beads recovered from the bottom of PUM I’s coffin

The beads themselves, especially the tubular beads, are encrusted with some mysterious substances and soil particulates. On some of the larger tubular beads, there is a white crystalline substance on the exterior – likely salt. Were it not for small sections on the tubular beads without this encrustation it would be difficult to see the material underneath. The material below is glassy and dark blue in color. This leads me to think that they are made of Egyptian faience, which is defined as a glazed, non-clay ceramic. To me that means that faience is a sort of cross between ceramic and glass technology. The smaller beads also appear to be faience, but in different colors, including this red bead:

As seen in the image above, some of the beads also have a granular, slightly waxy, light-dark brown substance on their surfaces-this mysterious substance is also present in some areas on the surface of PUM I’s wrappings. It can be removed rather easily from the beads, especially with the help of some mineral spirits, and as you can see it tends to come off in substantial chunks.

There are at least a few possible scenarios that would explain its presence.

1) It could have been a part of the technology of the time to adhere the beads to the mummy. In fact, there is 1 circular bead adhered/stuck to the surface of PUM I’s wrappings, which we found after some initial cleaning! However, it seems to be stuck on in kind of a strange location, and we are finding that it was more common to sew or tie these beaded shrouds in place.

A red circular bead stuck to the linen on the side of PUM I’s chest

2) It could be the remains of a wax or other adhesive method that was known to be used by Petrie, and likely other archaeologists, to fix the beads in place during excavation and recovery. As was usually the case, their original thread had long since disintegrated, so this method would allow the beads to be removed from the mummy in one piece, without losing their organization. To compare, we examined some beads in storage that are stuck together with wax-they were most likely acquired this way.

Beads stuck together with wax – note the dark, shiny appearance of the wax, quite different from what we’re seeing on PUM I’s beads.

3) The substance may be related to a material intentionally applied to the mummy at the time of mummification.

4) The substance accumulated sometime after burial.

As of right now I am not sure what this substance is and what purpose it may have served, but Molly and I will be investigating the beads and this mystery further. I will keep you updated as we learn more!

Traces of a beaded shroud

Posted on December 28, 2012 by mollygleeson

Holiday lethargy? Blustery, wintery weather? No matter-it’s business as usual this week in the Artifact Lab. I really enjoy my job, so I don’t feel like I need any extra motivation to come to work, but it helps that this week I’m working on a pretty interesting recent discovery-something that we found following the removal of PUM I from his coffin last week (see our earlier blogposts on this).

Action shot of our conservation team lifting PUM I from his coffin

PUM I is an unidentified individual, who, until last week, was lying in his rectangular wooden coffin. He had been removed before, for autopsy in 1971/72 (the details are a bit sparse), and his body has been significantly disturbed, cut into, and many of his internal remains are now removed from his body. Needless to say, he doesn’t look his best, and I assumed that any associated burial items were long gone by now. Our hope is that CT-scanning will reveal anything that may have been included or left behind in his wrappings that wasn’t disturbed through this previous work.

So we were pretty surprised when, after lifting his body from the coffin, we found a small bead on the bottom of the coffin, and then another, and now we have recovered 21 small beads. Some of these beads are tubular and others are circular, all with a hole through the center.

20 of the beads found in PUM I’s coffin (shot taken before the 21st bead was found)

Having the mummy out of the coffin also allowed us to examine the wrappings much more closely-it is now evident that there stains and impressions on the wrappings that show a diamond-shaped pattern:

The diamond-shaped pattern visible on the surface of the linen wrappings

This diamond-shaped pattern is a typical design for many beaded shrouds-we have a portion of a beaded shroud here on exhibit in the museum which has this pattern. You can see a photo of this object, along with more information, on our online collections database.

Finally, we returned to look at some old x-rays (from 1932) that we recently had scanned from the museum archives, which showed that the beads were indeed once lying on the wrappings.

1932 X-ray of PUM I. The beads appear on the film, indicated here with red circles.

Looks like the beads that we just found were part of a beaded shroud that once covered PUM I’s wrappings. THIS IS VERY EXCITING!

We will continue to examine these beads to determine what they are made of-they are definitely made of a glassy substance-probably faience. We are also carefully documenting the impressions on the linen wrappings so that we can try to reconstruct what the beaded shroud may have looked like. We will provide updates as we learn more.

Natron

Posted on December 15, 2012 by mollygleeson

Have you checked out our FAQs page? We hear lots of interesting questions in the Artifact Lab every day, and we’re posting some of the more frequently asked ones on there, and providing answers when possible.

We recently added more information about natron to our FAQs-What is natron and what was it used for? Natron is a natural mineral consisting of a mixture of sodium carbonate decahydrate with sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, and sodium sulfate-essentially, a salt. Natron was an important part of the mummification process. It was used by embalmers to pack the body, which would help preserve the body by drying it out.

We are interested in observing the presence of natron on objects in the Artifact Lab. One of our mummies, for instance, has a very fine, white, crystalline substance in areas on its wrappings, particularly on the inside of the wrappings. Here is what it looks like:

An example of the white crystalline substance observed on the surface of the textile wrappings on one of our mummies.

And this is what it looks like under the binocular microscope:

That same crystalline substance magnified 7.5X

We also see this on some of the human remains in the lab. Is this natron? We’re hoping to investigate this further.

Read more about natron in the FAQs section of this site.

Polarized Light Microscopy

Posted on December 12, 2012 by mollygleeson

Our Conservation Department recently purchased a Zeiss polarized light microscope-”the best microscope on campus” according to the specialist who set it up for us, and who is knowledgeable about the other scopes in use at Penn. Having the nicest equipment around isn’t familiar territory for conservation labs, so we’re enjoying having this status, but more importantly, having such a nice piece of equipment to use.

Our new microscope installed in the Artifact Lab

Polarized light microscopy (PLM) is used for examination of specimens in many types of laboratories, including biology and geology labs. In conservation, we use PLM for identification of minute fragments from objects-anything from pigment particles to wood fragments to textile fibers. We also use this technique to examine corrosion products, salts, and other materials found on artifacts-all of this work helps us better understand what the objects are made of, their condition, and ultimately provides important information for making conservation treatment decisions.

For example, our Conservation Fellow Tessa de Alarcon, who is conducting a year-long condition survey of Penn Museum artifacts from Kourion, Cyprus, has been using PLM to examine salts present in ceramic vessels from this collection. Tessa is desalinating the ceramics to remove the salts, which likely accumulated in the ceramics in the burial environment and will cause damage if not removed. To confirm which salts are present, she removed samples of the salts and examined them under the microscope. Here is an image of one of the salt samples, which shows that there are 2 different types of salts present-nitrates and sulfates.

Magnified image of 2 types of salts present on a ceramic vessel from Kourion (400X magnification).

You can read more about Tessa’s work with the Kourion collection (and view a cool video clip!) here on the Penn Museum blog.

In the Artifact Lab, one of the first ways that I’ve used our new microscope is to examine fibers from a thread that detached from the fabric wrappings of the falcon mummy I described in a previous blogpost. Fortunately for me (but unfortunately for the poor falcon mummy!) there are lots of detached threads that were available to sample for examination under the microscope. Here is a magnified image of one of these threads:

A small detached thread from the falcon mummy’s wrappings (40X magnification). I noted that the thread has an “S” twist and the fibers are shiny.

Using our binocular microscope, I put a drop of water on the thread and teased out several individual fibers from the thread on a glass slide, and then covered the fibers with a cover slip.

This image shows all of the tiny fibers from the larger thread-it is important to examine these fibers individually in order to identify what type of textile the falcon mummy is wrapped in (40X magnification).

Once the slide was prepared, I mounted it on the polarized light microscope and examined it at 50, 100 and 200X magnification.

Fiber from falcon mummy textile wrappings (200X magnification)

Under such powerful magnification, it is possible to see features such as a very small lumen (central cavity) and nodes along the length of the fiber. These features are characteristic of flax fibers, and comparing my sample with known references (including in this great Fiber Reference Image Library), it was immediately clear that this is what it is. Flax is used to make linen, and since the majority of ancient Egyptian textiles are linen, I already had a good idea that this is what was used to make the falcon mummy-but this proves it!

You can see from this work that PLM is a very useful technique, but it also is important to have an idea about what the possibilities are for what your sample-background research and close examination before microscopy is essential.

What do the conservators do when they’re not in the Artifact Lab?

Posted on November 23, 2012 by artifactlab

Molly Gleeson, the primary project conservator for the Artifact Lab is on vacation so, if you come by over the next little while, one of the other staff conservators (Julie Lawson, Nina Owczarek and I – Lynn Grant) will be taking turns being the Conservator on Duty. While there, we work on the same sorts of projects that Molly does but you might wonder what we do when it’s not our turn in the fishbowl. With a collection of over a million artifacts, there’s plenty to keep three (or even 30, if we just had room) busy. Because Penn Museum’s collections are so large, we have to prioritize what we work on. The conservation treatments we’re working on right now are mostly for objects going on exhibition (mainly Native American artifacts for an exhibition opening in a year), or on loan (we loan artifacts to Museums all over the world; this fall we’ve worked on objects going to New York, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Spain, Amsterdam, Switzerland, and Taiwan, to name just a few) or artifacts being photographed for publication.

One of the places conservator Lynn Grant spent time recently: an art storage warehouse in Connecticut where some of our collections were stored (white crates).

In addition, we work very closely with other Museum staff on preventative conservation (see Molly’s earlier blog post, to keep our collections in the best possible condition. This means monitoring storage conditions, artifacts on exhibition, advising on materials used in display, and many other tasks. These don’t always happen in the Museum, either. We conservators often act as couriers, accompanying artifacts as they travel to make sure that they receive the proper care. One recent courier trip I did has a certain amount of overlap with work in the Artifact lab, since it involved an Ancient Egyptian tomb chapel.

One block (the false door) from the offering chapel of Kapure. This single limestone block weighs over 9000 pounds.

The late Old Kingdom offering chapel of Kapure from Saqqara (dating to ca. 2300 B.C.) was once part of this high ranking official’s mudbrick mastaba tomb. The interior of the chapel was lined with limestone blocks beautifully decorated with carved and painted scenes representing the deceased seated at a table of offerings and receiving funerary provisions. Part of the chapel of Kapure is on display in the Museum’s Lower Egyptian Gallery. The rest, which was part of a traveling exhibition in the late 1990s, has been in storage in Connecticut since 2000. This was supposed to be a temporary situation but it’s gone on for longer than we ever expected and now that there is a suitable storage facility here in Philadelphia, we decided to bring the tomb chapel closer to home. Why wouldn’t we just bring it back to the Museum, you ask? Well, it’s kind of big and very unwieldy. There were 8 crates, the heaviest of which weighed over 9000 lbs. We hope to be able to reinstall it in our Egyptian Galleries before too much longer but until then, it will stay in specialized art storage.

My colleagues in adventure, Bob Thurlow (left) and Jen Wegner, get ready to to work on our crated limestone blocks.

Getting it there was a bit of an adventure. Three Museum staff members: Bob Thurlow of the Registrar’s Office, Dr. Jen Wegner of the Egyptian Section, and myself, traveled to the warehouse where it was stored in Connecticut. There we had to open each crate; document the current condition of the blocks inside both with digital photography and written descriptions; check that the crates were still in good enough condition to protect the artifacts during transit; make any necessary improvements to the crates; then oversee the loading of the crates on to a very large truck; follow the truck to the new warehouse; and finally supervise the unloading and placement of the crates there. This all took two-and-a-half days and meant long hours working in an unheated warehouse – in November.

Art handlers and warehouse men load the false door crate on to the truck, using the big forklift (the smaller one couldn’t lift the 9000 lb weight). The crate fit with about 2 inches to spare – a tribute to Bob Thurlow’s excellent planning and preparation.

Jen Wegner explaining the finer points of the false door block to two of the warehouse employees just before we put the lid back on and prepared to take it back to Philadelphia.

This is not the glamorous part of our jobs! Still, it needed to be done and it was a great chance to get up close and personal with some gorgeous Egyptian funerary art. Working with Jen Wegner was a treat as she was able to tell us what we were looking at and read the inscriptions. I’m sure Jen got tired of me asking what various symbols were, especially since most of them seemed to be bread – apparently Egyptian funerals were a carb-fest!

posted by Lynn Grant

Happy Halloween from the Artifact Lab!

Posted on October 31, 2012 by mollygleeson

We’re celebrating Halloween tonight in the Artifact Lab as part of Yelp’s Night by the Nile event.

To get into the spirit, Lynn and I will be working late, in costume, and talking to guests about conservation and mummies.

We thought that for tonight’s event, it would be appropriate to lower the lights and do some ultraviolet (UV) examination of objects, and to talk about this process to those who visit the lab.

As we have explained in previous posts, visual examination is a critical first step of the conservation process. We can understand a lot about objects just by looking at them under good lighting and with magnification.

While most of our examination is initially carried out under visible light, we also use UV lamps (better known as black lights) to examine artifacts in order to make visible things that we cannot see otherwise. Examination of objects in the dark under UV allows us to see UV fluorescence of materials, and some materials exhibit unique or characteristic fluorescence. This often helps us characterize materials and to distinguish old restoration materials from original materials-for instance, shellac, used historically to repair objects, exhibits a characteristic bright orange fluorescence under UV.

For a great explanation of UV, along with some interesting images, check out this post on UV examination by my colleague Allison Lewis, conservator at UC Berkeley’s Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology.

We’ll be sure to share any interesting images we capture tonight!