In a groundbreaking new study, anthropologist Nikolaos Moudouros explores the complex layers of colonization in Cyprus, shedding light on a phenomenon that challenges traditional categorizations of settler colonialism. Published in the International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, the research proposes that the case of Cyprus is not a straightforward example of settler colonialism but represents a hybrid form of colonization imbued with distinct historic and socio-political dimensions. This nuanced understanding has profound implications for how scholars and policymakers interpret and respond to territorial conflicts and identities in postcolonial contexts.
The island of Cyprus, situated at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, has long been a site of contested sovereignty and ethnic divisions. The research delves deeply into the intricate relationships between Turkish Cypriots and settlers from Turkey, highlighting antagonisms that arise from overlapping but divergent claims to land, citizenship, and belonging. Central to the study is the argument that the Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus should not be understood solely as colonial subjects; rather, their presence disrupts simple binaries of colonizer and colonized, opening up a space for new forms of hybrid colonization that reflect both settler ambitions and indigenous resistance.
Through meticulous ethnographic fieldwork and archival research, Moudouros reconstructs the socio-historical trajectory that led to the Turkish settlement in Cyprus following the island’s division in 1974. The research methods employed include comprehensive interviews with Turkish Cypriot locals, settlers, and government officials, alongside an analysis of policy documents and international legal frameworks. This multi-disciplinary approach allows the study to go beyond political rhetoric, illuminating everyday experiences and grievances that shape the ongoing tensions on the island.
One of the core technical revelations of the study is the identification of settlers’ dual positionality. Unlike classical settler colonialism models, which typically characterize settlers as instruments of a distant metropole imposing authority over indigenous populations, the Turkish settlers exhibit characteristics of both colonizers and marginalized migrants. This duality manifests in their social, legal, and economic status within Turkish Cypriot society, often positioning them in conflict with native Turkish Cypriots who perceive them as competitors for resources, employment, and political influence.
Moudouros’s work critiques mainstream academic frameworks by arguing that traditional definitions of settler colonialism—which emphasize elimination or displacement of indigenous peoples—do not sufficiently account for the persistence of Turkish Cypriot identities alongside settler identities. Instead, a hybrid model that integrates elements of settler colonialism, migration theory, and postcolonial studies better captures the ongoing antagonism and coexistence. This pluralistic framework challenges established paradigms and invites scholars to reconsider settler colonialism as a dynamic and situational process rather than a fixed historical category.
The implications of this hybrid model extend beyond Cyprus, offering new analytical tools for understanding other geopolitical contexts marked by similar complexities. For example, regions experiencing protracted conflicts with layered populations, including settler migrants and indigenous groups, may benefit from a reconceptualization of colonization that incorporates hybrid identities and contested claims to space. This shift could influence conflict resolution strategies, legal adjudications, and international diplomacy by foregrounding nuanced power relations instead of oversimplified binaries.
Furthermore, the study underscores how state policies have shaped the settler-native antagonism. Following 1974, the Turkish government actively promoted migration to Northern Cyprus to consolidate control over the territory. This state-driven migration policy injected demographic change that complicated the social fabric and exacerbated tensions. The research highlights how administrative mechanisms, property laws, and citizenship regulations have further entrenched divisions, producing structural inequalities that persist to this day.
Moudouros also provides an in-depth analysis of how local narratives mobilize identity politics against the backdrop of colonization. Turkish Cypriot discourse often frames settlers as “outsiders” despite shared ethnic and linguistic ties, revealing the intricacies of belonging and exclusion. These narratives are informed by historical experiences of displacement, intercommunal violence, and struggles for political autonomy, which continue to inform identity formation and antagonistic practices in the present.
Technically, the article employs a rigorous methodological design combining qualitative data with spatial analysis to map settlement patterns and social interactions. Geographic information systems (GIS) are used to track the demographic evolution of settler communities and their spatial distribution relative to indigenous neighborhoods. This technical approach provides empirical grounding for the argument that settlement patterns are not random but strategically influenced by political aims and social dynamics, reinforcing divisions and competition over resources.
The integration of historical documentation with contemporary ethnographic observation allows for a diachronic understanding of the colonization process. By tracing changes from the initial phases of Turkish settlement through subsequent decades, the research reveals cycles of accommodation, resistance, and adaptation. This longitudinal perspective situates the present conflicts within a broader temporal context, emphasizing that colonization in Cyprus is not a static phenomenon but an evolving process conditioned by shifting regional and international forces.
Importantly, the article does not portray Turkish settlers or Turkish Cypriots as monolithic groups. On the contrary, it emphasizes internal heterogeneity, highlighting generational differences, socio-economic disparities, and competing political orientations. This diversity complicates the narrative of antagonism, suggesting that alliances and frictions are fluid and context-dependent. Such complexity defies simple categorizations and calls for flexible frameworks capable of capturing multifaceted social realities.
The research also discusses international legal dimensions, particularly the contested application of human rights law and property restitution claims by displaced populations. The unique status of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey, adds layers of legal and diplomatic ambiguity, influencing how settler-native relations are mediated or obstructed. These unresolved legal questions exacerbate tensions and hinder conflict resolution, underscoring the importance of understanding settler colonial dynamics within the broader international law regime.
One of the striking contributions of this work is its challenge to the normative binaries of colonizer versus colonized by emphasizing intergroup entanglements and shared histories of marginalization. By revealing hybrid colonization as a lived reality, the study pushes anthropological and ethnological scholarship to reconsider entrenched assumptions and encourages more nuanced and context-sensitive analyses in conflict anthropology.
Beyond academia, this nuanced understanding of Cyprus’s colonization could influence policy debates by framing settler-native antagonism as a structural problem requiring integrated social and political remedies. Recognizing the hybrid nature of colonization can foster dialogues that address both settler rights and indigenous claims, promoting coexistence rather than exacerbating divisions through exclusionary politics.
As Cyprus continues to navigate an unsettled political future, Moudouros’s research provides a timely, sophisticated lens through which to interpret the island’s enduring disputes. The characterization of colonization as hybrid, rather than classical settler colonialism, allows stakeholders to grapple with the complex interplay of migration, identity, power, and law, offering hope for new pathways toward reconciliation and mutual recognition.
Ultimately, this pioneering study illustrates the need for interdisciplinary and innovative approaches to colonial and postcolonial studies. By blending anthropology, ethnology, spatial analysis, and legal inquiry, it sets a new benchmark for research on contested territories worldwide, urging scholars and policymakers alike to embrace complexity and reject reductionist narratives.
Subject of Research:
Colonization dynamics in Cyprus with a focus on Turkish Cypriot and Turkish settler relations
Article Title:
Settler colonialism or a hybrid case? Dimensions of colonization in Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot–settler antagonism
Article References:
Moudouros, N. Settler colonialism or a hybrid case? Dimensions of colonization in Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot–settler antagonism. Int. j. anthropol. ethnol. 9, 14 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-025-00137-7
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 13 August 2025
