Modern Human Origins—Distinguishing the Models

Four models of modern human origins were described and discussed by Aiello (Aiello, L. (1993) American Anthropologist 95: 73–96. She distinguished them as the African Replacement Model, the African Hybridization and Replacement Model, the Assimilation Model, and the Multiregional Model. All of these models have been modified and refined following further research and development by their proponents, but this is now leading to some confusion in testing the models. Whereas developments of the African Replacement Model have often been given distinct names, quite different versions of the Multiregional Model are still referred to under the original name. New ways of distinguishing the models are proposed, and the suggestion is made that some versions of the Multiregional Model should now be subsumed under the Assimilation Model, while others could perhaps be known under the term Multiregional Model 2.Quatre modèles représentant les origines de l'homme moderne furent décrits et discutés par Aiello (1993): le Modèle Africain de Remplacement (African Replacement Model), le Modèle Africain d'Hybridisation et de Remplacement (African Hybridization and Replacement Model), le Modèle d'Assimilation (Assimilation Model) et le Modèle Multirégional (Multiregional Model). Suite à de nouvelles recherches et de nouveaux développements, chacun de ces modèles a été modifié et affiné par ses partisans, ce qui, à ce jour, a mené à une certaine confusion lorsqu'il s'agit de tester ces modèles. Alors que les développements issus du Modèle Africain de Remplacement ont souvent reçu des noms à part, plusieurs variantes, toutes plutôt différentes les unes des autres, du Modèle Multirégional ne sont toujours connues que par leur nom d'origine. Ici je présente de nouvelles propositions ayant comme but de faciliter la distinction entre différents modèles. Je propose également que certaines variantes du Modèle Multirégional devraient à présent être comprises dans le Modèle d'Assimilation, tandis que d'autres pourraient peut-être prendre le nom de Modèle Multirégional 2 (Multiregional Model 2).     

Constructing Turkish “exceptionalism”: Discourses of liminality and hybridity in post-Cold War Turkish foreign policy

This article examines the discursive practices that enable the construction of Turkish “exceptionalism.” It argues that in an attempt to play the mediator/peacemaker role as an emerging power, the Turkish elite construct an “exceptionalist” identity that portrays Turkey in a liminal state. This liminality and thus the “exceptionalist” identity it creates, is rooted in the hybridization of Turkey’s geographical and historical characteristics. The Turkish foreign policy elite make every effort to underscore Turkey’s geography as a meeting place of different continents. Historically, there has also been an ongoing campaign to depict Turkey’s past as “multicultural” and multi-civilizational. These constructions of identity however, run counter to the Kemalist nation-building project, which is based on “purity” in contrast to “hybridity” both in terms of historiography and practice.