Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:44:13.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pomak Borderlands: Muslims on the Edge of Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Mary Neuburger
Mary Neuburger*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Texas at Austin, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

      We contact the world
      only through our boundaries.
      Blaga Dimitrova

In a recent issue of the Bulgarian periodical Sega (Now) a reporter related an extraordinary tale of how various name-changing campaigns had marked the experience of a Bulgarian-speaking Muslim—hereafter “Pomak”—in the village of Bachkovo. The story began during the Balkan Wars in 1912–1913 when Hasan, the aforementioned Pomak from the Rhodope mountains of southern Bulgaria, was forced to change his name to Dragan as part of the wartime state campaign for Muslims with “Slavic origins” to “reclaim their Bulgarian names.” A change in politics at the beginning of World War I opened the door for Dragan to change his name back to Hasan; and so he did. In the late 1930s, however, he was again compelled to change his name back to Dragan, in line with the Rodina (Homeland) directed name-changing campaigns, described in depth below. After the Communist takeover in 1944 Dragan was able, again, to change his name back to Hasan as wartime “Fascist” policy was reversed. But with the movement towards “national integration” in the 1960s Hasan was forced, again, to change his name back to Dragan. After the fall of Communism in Bulgaria in November 1989 “Dragan” again was allowed to change his name back to Hasan; and so he did. In his one lifetime this “Bulgarian” of Islamic faith, subject to the whims of the fickle and contested Bulgarian national project, changed his name six times. Admittedly, the Pomak's fate in Balkan history seems to be primarily as pawn in Bulgarian and other Balkan national rivalries and domestic designs. Pomak history is, more often than not, the story of the center looking to the margins and imposing its own designs. Having said that, these designs—generally driven by the dual forces of modernity and nationalism—were always subject to a spectrum of Pomak responses and strategies.

Type
The Muslim Minorities
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 181 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. B. Dimitrova, “Touch,” The Last Rock Eagle: Selected Poems of Blaga Dimitrova (London: Forest Books, 1992), p. 20.Google Scholar

2. I am well aware of the debates surrounding the term “Pomak,” which has become increasingly “politically incorrect” in historical and contemporary Bulgarian academic parlance for various reasons, such as the lack of use of the term by “Pomaks” themselves, and the purported “derogatory nature” of the term. However, I still prefer the term to “Bulgarian-Muslims” or “Bulgaro-Mohammedans,” which imply a kind of essential “Bulgarianness” in the identities of this population which is far from established.Google Scholar

3. Sega, 1–7 February 1996, p. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. The following figures for Pomak populations in the various Balkan states (with the exception of Turkey) are offered by Hugh Poulton, The Balkans: Minorities and States in Conflict (London: Minorities Rights Group, 1993) (note that some states have more precise figures than others): Bulgaria (1990) 268,971 (p. 111); for Greece there seem to be no figures after 1912, when the population was 40, 921 (p. 175); Macedonia (1981) 39,555 (p. 39); for Albania there seem to be no accurate figures and a range of estimates from 3,000–4,000 (the Hoxha regime) to 100,000 (according to Macedonian figures) (pp. 201–202).Google Scholar

5. See, for example, Ali Eminov, (New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 110.Google Scholar

6. Again, in the post-1989 period a small movement, the Movement for Christianity and Progress, has emerged around Father Boris Sariev (of Pomak descent) which seeks to Christianize Pomaks, thus presumably returning them to the fold of the Bulgarian nation. Ibid., p. 67.Google Scholar

7. See Eminov's discussion of this issue, Turkish and Other Muslim Minorities of Bulgaria , p. 109.Google Scholar

8. In the post-socialist period, Kamen Burov, Pomak mayor of Zhiltusha in the Eastern Rhodopes, has asserted the existence of a separate “Pomak” minority and has even lobbied in international circles for the recognition of such a group. The extent of his support at home is unclear, but surely minimal. See M. Todorova, “Identity (Trans)formation among Pomaks in Bulgaria,” in L. Kürti and J. Langman, eds, Beyond Borders: Remaking Cultural Identities in the New East and Central Europe (New York: Westview Press, 1997), p. 69.Google Scholar

9. For Turkish sources that claim Pomaks as Turks, see Halim Cavusoglu, Balkanlar'da Pomak Türkleri: Tarih ve Sosyo-Külturel Yapi (Ankara: KOKSAV, 1993), and Huseyin Memisoglu, Pages of the History of Pomac Turks (Ankara: Safak Maatbasi, 1991). An example of a Serbian source that lumps the Muslims of the “South” (i.e., Macedonia) in with the Muslims of Bosnia and Hercogovina as “belonging to our national tree” is Dragishe Lapchevitza, O Nashima Muslimanima (Belgrade: Getse Koina, 1925). Also see Poulton for some discussion of Pomaks in Albania (pp. 201–203), Macedonia (pp. 55–56), Greece (pp. 175–176), and Bulgaria (pp. 111–115). A more thorough discussion of Bulgarian sources follows.Google Scholar

10. In the Macedonian case the recognition of nationhood and gaining of a national republic within the Yugoslav federation in the post-1945 era served as a similar vehicle for propelling Macedonian claims, as Serbian claims to Muslims this far south and elsewhere were eclipsed by Yugoslav political realities. The Macedonians, however, were still allowed to claim Macedo-Slavic-speaking Muslims (in the Macedonian case, normally called Torbeshi). See, for example, Niyazi Limanoski, Izlamskata Religija and Izlamiziranite Makedontsi (Skopje: Makedonska Kniga, 1989).Google Scholar

11. For a thorough discussion of Balkan and Great Power pretensions in the area see H. Wilkinson and E. Barker, Macedonia: Its Place in Balkan Power Politics (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1950); and S. Danchenko and I. Viazemskaia, Rossiia i Balkani: Konets XVII–1918 (Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1990).Google Scholar

12. S. Shishkov, Pomatsi v Trite Bulgarski Oblasti: Trakiia, Makedoniia i Miziia (Plovdiv: Pechatnitsa “Makedonia,” 1914), p. 3.Google Scholar

13. See Shishkov (1914), and S. Shishkov, Bulgaro-Mokhamedani: Istoriko-Zemepisen I Narodouchen Pregled c Obrazi (Plovdiv: Turgovska Pechatnitsa, 1936).Google Scholar

14. Significantly, Pomak women as purveyors of the practices and properties of the Muslim hearth were in many ways at the heart of the ethnographic projects of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. For a focus on the question of Muslim women see Mary Neuburger, “Difference Unveiled: Bulgarian National Imperatives and the Re-dressing of Muslim Women in the Communist Period: 1945–89,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 1, 1997, pp. 169–181.Google Scholar

15. V. Georgiev and S. Trifinov, Pokrǔstvaneto na Bǔlgarite Mokhamedani 1912–1913: Dokumenti (Sofia: Akademichno Izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 1995), p. 8.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., pp. 60, 101, 163.Google Scholar

17. While non-Bulgarian sources tend to agree that said conversions were forced upon the Pomak population writ large, Bulgarian sources vary in their assessment of these events. Pre-1945 sources tend to assert that Pomaks voluntarily embraced Christiantiy after being “liberated” by their Bulgarian brothers. Bulgarian sources from the socialist period do contend that the conversions of 1912–1913 were forced and supply this as evidence that the Pomaks were alienated early on from the Bulgarian cause by “bourgeois Fascist” mistakes, as opposed to the presumably correct path of the socialist regime.Google Scholar

18. Georgiev and Trifinov, pp.443.Google Scholar

19. Boncho Asenov, Vuzroditelniyat Protses I Durzhavna Sigurnost (Sofia: GEYA-INF, 1996).Google Scholar

20. See Nikolai Michev and Petur Koledarov, Promenite v Imenata i Statuta na Selishtata v Bǔlgariia: 1878–1972 (Sofia: Nauka i Iskustvo, 1973).Google Scholar

21. Rodopa, 1 December 1925, p. 1.Google Scholar

22. Ibid., p. 55.Google Scholar

23. SODA (Smolyan Okrǔzhen Dǔrzhaven Arkhiv), Smolyan Regional Government Archive, Smolyan, Bulgaria (F-26K, O-1, E-2, L-8–9: 1939).Google Scholar

24. P. Marinov, ed., Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 1 (Smolyan: Izdaniye na “Rodina,” 1939), p. 20.Google Scholar

25. Marinov, Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 1, p. 13.Google Scholar

26. SODA (F-26K, O-1, E-29, L-1: 1937).Google Scholar

27. M. Stoyanova, “Kǔm Istoriiata na Dvizhenieto ‘Rodina’ v Istochni Rodopi,” Izvestiia na Muzeite ot Yuzhna Bǔlgariia, 16 (October 1990), p. 244; SODA (F-26K, O-1, E-29, L-1: 1937).Google Scholar

28. SODA (F-26k, O-1, E-31, L-3: 1938).Google Scholar

29. SODA (F-26k, O-1, E-31, L-3: 1938).Google Scholar

30. Marinov, Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 1, p. 19; SODA (F-26k, O-1, E-31, L-1: 1938).Google Scholar

31. Marinov, Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 1, p. 34.Google Scholar

32. Ibid.Google Scholar

33. SODA (F-26K, O-1, E-2, L-6: 1939).Google Scholar

34. Marinov, Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 2, p. 18.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., p. 19.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., p. 20.Google Scholar

37. Elsewhere I look more fully at the question of de-veiling among Pomak and Turkish women in Bulgaria and elaborate the theory that while some of these women (primarily elites in urban settings) did wear heavier black garments that we might consider to be veils, most simply tied their headscarves in an idenifying manner—draped across the chin instead of tied under or behind it. See Neuburger, “Difference Unveiled.”Google Scholar

38. P. Marinov, ed., Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 4, p. 13.Google Scholar

39. TsIDA (F-142, O-2, E-128, L-82: 1944).Google Scholar

40. TsIDA (F-471, O-1, E-1084, L-4: 1942).Google Scholar

41. SODA (F-42K, O-15, E-10, L-319: 1942).Google Scholar

42. Marinov, Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 4, p. 54.Google Scholar

43. Khristov, Khristo. Iz Minoloto na Bǔlgarite Mokhamedani v Rodopite. (From the Past of Bulgarian Mohammedans in the Rhodopes) Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bǔlgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1958 (1958), pp. 136, 144.Google Scholar

44. TsIDA (F-142, O-2, E-128, L-85: 1944).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Marinov, Sbornik Rodina, Vol. 4, p. 28.Google Scholar

46. Ibid., p. 28.Google Scholar

47. TsIDA (F-142, O-2, E-128, L-79: 1944).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. TsIDA (F-142, O-2, E-128, L-80: 1944).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. TsIDA (F-264, O-1, E-440, L-6: 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. SODA (F-26K, O-1, E-31, L-l2: 1942).Google Scholar

51. For example the BCP created in 1947 and dissolved in 1950 a Pomak seminary called Mehmed Sinap. Its demise was justified by fears of its “injurious influence on the consciousness of Bulgaro-Mohammedans … the existence of a special school for them upholds the mistaken conviction that they are some kind of a minority and something separate from Bulgarians.” TsIDA (F-165, O-3, E-307, L-7: 1950).Google Scholar

52. TsIDA (F-28, O-1, E-399, L-76: 1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. TsIDA (F-165, O-1, E-38, L-1: 1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. TsIDA (F-165, O-1, E-38, L-20: 1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. TsIDA (F-165, O-1, E-38, L-20: 1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. TsIDA (F-146, O-5, E-605, L-1: 1945).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. PDA (F-959k, O-1, E-944, L-2: 1969).Google Scholar

58. PDA (959K-1–110–1958, 85).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. See Neuburger, “Difference Unveiled.”Google Scholar

60. Foreign Policy Institute, The Tragedy of the Turkish Minority in Bulgaria (Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute, 1989), p. 56.Google Scholar

61. G. Alhaug and Y. Konstantinov, Names, Ethnicity and Politics: Islamic Names in Bulgaria 1912–1992 (Oslo: Novus Press, 1995), pp. 29–31.Google Scholar

62. PDA (F-959k, O-1, E-225, L-260: 1974).Google Scholar

63. PDA (F-959k, O-1, E-225, L-261: 1974).Google Scholar

64. PDA (F-959k, O-1, E-225, L-261: 1974).Google Scholar

65. PDA (F-959k, O-1, E-226, L-37: 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. PDA (F-959k, O-1, E-226, L-37: 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67. PDA (F-959k, O-1, E-226, L-40: 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. See, for example, K. Karpat, ed., The Turks of Bulgaria: The History, Culture, and Political Fate of a Minority (Istanbul: ISIS Press, 1990).Google Scholar

69. According to an article in Sega, Pomaks have reverted to Bulgarian names especially since 1993 in search of employment opportunities both in Bulgaria and in Germany, for example, where their Turkish names purportedly were a barrier to obtaining employment. Sega, 1–7 February 1996, p. 22.Google Scholar