 Rwyf, rydyn ni'n gydch chi'n gilydd y llwyth o'r lleidion yng Nghymru. Ac oeddwn ni'n gilydd y cyfle o'r cynllun ymlaen o archaelogu arferwadau yn y ffartig ar gyfer 20 ysgwylol. Felly, ar gyfer, rwy'n gilydd i'n mynd i'w clywed o'r ddaeth cyfle o'r cynllun i Alfryd-Kinsey yn y cyfle o'r cyfle o'r wneud y 20 ysgwyl. Ac yna y rheswm newid yw i'n cyffredinol. I don't yet have very good collecting stories about where Kinsey got his material. That's good for another. Maybe that's for next year. What I'm going to focus on today is the why. I'm going to offer some initial ideas of why I think Kinsey was interested in archaeological material as part of his sexological work. I'm going to look at the way that he framed this material as part of his scientific study of sex. I'm going to compare his treatment with the 19th century so-called secret museums and their treatment of this material. So, just to give you a brief overview on the history of sexual science or sexology, now thought to- or traditionally has been thought of the mainly Western attempt to understand sex scientifically, that emerged in the latter part of the 19th century. It's usually perceived as a field that came out of psychiatry and medicine. However, recent research, is looking at the way in which sexologists wanted to understand sex, not only from a biological and psychological perspective, but also in its cultural and social dimensions. This is suggesting that sexologists were interacting with the fields of historical studies, anthropology, literature, art and also, as I'm looking at, archaeology. Mae'r cyfnod ddau'r Cyfrwyll, dweud am y blynedd, mae fydd gyrddwyd yn ein bod yn ddweud y gyrddwyd. Mae'n gyrddwyd yn ymddangos o'r cyfle cyfrwyllau o'r cyfrwyllau, ac yn y blynedd, mae'n ddweud i'r cyfrwyllau o'r cyfrwyllau o'r cyfrwyllau. Ond rwy'n dda i'r gyrddwyd yn ei bydd arnynniolol a'r six a'r six o'r ddyliadau sy'n i'r magnydd Hershfeld ysgol, oedd ymulatingu arferliannol iawn ar gyfer arlau'r argylodric. Ond oed yn amlwg nimnwyd yn Y Alfred Kinsey o'r c�sydd. Mae'n fawr i groes am argylwyd y gymryd ym Aelodau Y gyfysgol Llywodraeth yn gyv andิd o'r cyfnodol iawn yn y y 140 ac yn rhan 50, yw ddigonol yn glaw ar gyfer yno cyfnodol iawn a oedd yw'n cael ei osi iawn i gorffodio yma ar gyfer yw mewn cyfnodol iawn ysgolol iawn ar gyfer y ngyllgor in the 1940s and 50s. However, Kinsey actually had a really broad understanding of sexual science. He says in his sexual behaviour in the human male, which is the first so-called Kinsey report, that sex should be studied across fields in order to be able to understand human sexuality. And this includes archaeology. So he says, from the dawn of human history, from the drawings left by primitive peoples, on through the development of civilisations, ancient, classic, et cetera, men have left a record of their sexual activities and thinking about sex, and all of this give evidence of what people think and do sexually. So he's interested in the past and he's interested in the material and visual culture of the past. So Kinsey and his institute for sex research built up a huge collection, actually, of material relating to sex from across time and place. So as well as they built up an archive and library of sex research materials, they also put together this object collection, which has now become what the Kinsey, I mean the Kinsey is still running in the institute. They've claimed to be the largest repository of sex-related materials in the world. And Kinsey himself employed an anthropologist who also had some experience in archaeology, Paul Gebbard, to come and work with him at the institute. And together they set up this big network of collectors, of museum curators, to help them to study and collect this material. As I say, I'm not giving that history today, but that's for another time. One significant person is Raphael Leichel Hoyle, who was a Peruvian archaeologist who Kinsey started a collaboration with. And they were going to publish a study on the ancient mocha civilisations sex pots or erotic pots and you can see Kinsey there in Lima visiting the collection there. So, when we think about archaeological erotica and collected, particularly museological or institutional collections of sexually related ancient artefacts, our mind quite often goes to the so-called secret museums of the 19th century. And the most famous example, of course, is the Naples Archaeological Museums, Gabinetto secretto, which from at least the late 18th century to a varying degree was segregating material from the sites of ancient Pompeii and Herculaneum because of their sexual content and housing them in a special collection or later room. And the British Museum also had its own equivalent from at least the 1830s called the secretum and that brought objects from across museum departments or objects that would have gone to different museum departments and brought them into one room because of their sexual content and these rooms were more or less had restricted access to them. And because of these sort of secret, this history of the secret museums, we often associate the modern treatment of sexual artefacts with ideas about segregation, censorship and particularly the anxieties of Victorians coming face to face with the supposed more sexual openness of past cultures. And indeed scholars have linked, for example, the invention itself of the modern category of the pornographic or the obscene directly with these new museum policies of segregating archaeological artefacts because of their sexual content in the 19th century. I suggest that the later sexological collections such as Kinsey's Preventers with a different type of engagement with this material. So instead of this idea of the material coming in and being quickly hidden away we find these institutions that are deliberately going out and searching, engaging with these objects. And the types of material that we find in the secret museums in the 19th century, in the 20th century's sexological institutes we find the same kinds of material, but in this case they are very self-consciously framed as scientific. They're very consciously trying to move away and distance themselves from this idea of pornography. For example, in the Kinsey Institute in the 1940s they had been buying the erotica, importing erotica from around the world and this eventually clashed with the increasingly strict U.S. federal obscenity laws this was during the time of McCarthyism and so Kinsey and his staff had to really carefully articulate how this vast array of sex objects could be justified as scientific so they wrote in this statement, they are indispensable sources of data for any scientific study of sex. I suggest though, as further to this I suggest that these sexological and archaeological collections also help us to evaluate the earlier 19th century model of the secret museum. So this is about sort of challenging this neat progression of 19th century censorship through to 20th century liberation. And so scholars have rightly lamented the damaging effect that removing sexual material from their individual museum departments such as at the British Museum and putting them into this one collection because of their sexual content and this damaging effect that this had on our modern understanding of the role of sexuality within individual cultures. That is absolutely true. However, as archaeologist Richard Parkinson has also recently acknowledged the secret museum model in the 19th century what it also did was brought together these sexually related artefacts creating a repository of research materials for people interested in the history of sex. And this I suggest should be seen as contributing to the development of a specialized study of sexuality which blossomed in the second half of the 19th century and which gave birth to sexology. And as I've said, an interest in archaeological objects persisted within sexology in the 20th century. And what the secret museum did that was really important for people studying sex and what became important for the sexologists was to provide the means to see and compare material relating to sex across cultures. This was really important. So sexology is starting in the late 19th century. They were really keen on this culture comparative method looking to other cultures in order to put western practices and beliefs into sharper definition but also to critique what they perceived as restrictive western attitudes to sexuality as part of the sexologist's very progressive, often very progressive political aims. So for example, throughout the Kinsey reports we find alongside his tables of statistics we find these references to art and ancient art and artefacts from across cultures. So he uses these objects that show acts outside of the western Christian mores to challenge the idea that these acts are unnatural or abnormal. So for example, in his discussion of sexual positions we see here, this is from his second book, the sexual behavior in the human female, we see a table here that shows the frequency of different sexual positions among American heterosexual married couples in the 1940s and 1950s. And the table suggests that the most frequent position being used is the one in which the male is above. That's how he describes it. But Kinsey says in the report, most people will be surprised to learn that positions in intercourse are as much a product of human cultures as languages and clothing. So this is supported by reference to art and artefacts from across, for example, Mesopotamia, Peru, India, China, Greece and Rome, as well as evidence from so-called primitive cultures and also from the animal world. So he suggests, Kinsey suggests by using this, that when we do a study of erotic art we find that the one in which the female above is the most common position found in the ancient world as well as in the modern so-called primitive world and the animal world. So this, he says, proves that the missionary position is not normal or natural, as it might seem to most contemporary Americans, but only common. Now, I'm not an expert on a lot of these cultures that I've just mentioned that he references, but I do know that in ancient Greek visual culture, the position in which the woman is on top is not the most common, definitely. You might be able to tell me for the other cultures as well. So Kinsey's got it wrong there, for sure. And it should be said there is some really quite jarring differences between Kinsey's really hard statistics about the intricacies of contemporary American life and his much less sophisticated analysis of ancient materials. So, for example, he distinguishes between the sexual practices of different American cities, but then he makes these huge sweeping statements about world history. And his approach is a very colonial, cultural evolutionary approach, interests with ideas about primitivism and civilisation, which ignores the specificities of particular past cultures. And in fact, as Alice has told us earlier today in a previous talk, this material culture object-based approach to the past was old-fashioned by the time that Kinsey's doing this work. Kinsey's really led by this desire to see ancient material as almost photographic evidence of the past. So he says of the mocha pots, he believes they were a sober presentation of reality, ignoring any kind of ritualistic meanings, for example. Kinsey did acknowledge that the art and artefact collections were supplementary to his main project of doing the interviews. That was his main interest. And yet, just to sum up and conclude, I think it's still really important to recognise that archaeological material was important to this sexological institute. So collecting archaeological material was seen as a fundamental part of the business of doing sexology and running a scientific institute. This, I suggest, shows the intersection between archaeology and other fields such as sexology and encourages us to think about the meanings of science, for example, but also the boundaries of scholarship and disciplines. I've suggested that Kinsey's model for collecting material for his scientific institute in some ways was a descendant of this secret museum model. So bringing together artefacts relating to sexuality from across world cultures into one location, this very museological 19th century approach, plays a really important role for the sexologist in understanding modern Western sexual life. And this, I suggest, maybe hints at a new angle for the history of the modern reception of sexually-themed archaeological artefacts perhaps beyond just the story of censorship and pornography. Thank you.