Traditionally, Pomaks pursued a very isolated way of life. The specific features of the Rhodope region were rocky and infertile terrain and a lack of substantial transportation systems, which curtailed the economic and cultural communication with the rest of the country. The geography limits their farming opportunities into potato growing, rearing livestock and timber production. (Georgieva, 2001; Poulton, 1997, Kucukcan, 1999) After the First World War, the areas have also been introduced to cultivation of silkworm and tobacco which has became predominant form of agricultural production over the years.( Mancheva, 2001) Some of the male adult population also works in mines in which wages are low and work conditions are very poor. The villages are generally dispersed in the mountains and far away from the centers of trade and commerce. There is only a limited Pomak cohesion in terms of shared territory, with the largest concentration being in the Central Rhodope, nonetheless, in general, the geographic distribution of Pomaks is rather scattered due to both instability of borders in the last two centuries and the isolating effect of the mountain terrain.  All that really unites Pomaks is their adherence to Islam and their use of South Slavic dialects which may vary slightly based on region as well. (Neuburger, 2000) Hence, their lifestyle was shaped by Islamic belief and common law as well as their reliance on the village community and kinship solidarity.(Poulton, 1997, Cavusoglu, 1993; Georgieva, 2001, Brunnbauer 1999, ). This disconnection between the different settlements can also be accounted as an explanation of lack of cohesive identity. Especially in Bulgaria and Greece, even during intense political and social change; Pomaks were able to keep their specific social features. The main reason for this was that they did not take part in the migratory movements into towns and new industrial centers, but tried to remain in their villages. Pomaks were rather reluctant to work in urban centers, and to disperse in the cities, but rather lived at a certain distance from the majority society. (Mancheva, 2001, Brunnbauer, 1999, Omer, 2004). In Greece, it was the deliberate policy of the government to keep Pomaks to their traditional economic activities, to their old settlements, and their traditional lifestyles by confining to a restricted zone. However, in the last three decades Pomak communities have been opening more towards the outside world, as infrastructure development and emigration into towns began to have an impact. Brunnbauer,1999) Aftermath of the Ottoman retreat from Balkans has proved to be much more chaotic, conflict-ridden than the rest of the Pomak history. Pomaks, all of a sudden, were caught in the middle of the conflict about borders between competing nationalisms. They were the most complicated part of the question about how land and people should be demarcated into nations and states. Not surprisingly, all of the emerging nation-states claimed Pomaks as their own and at the same time accused them of being a traitor, man of the Other. Therefore, during the Balkan wars, they have been both persecuted and welcomed in different periods and under different governments. The fluctuation of borders only added to their misery by the loss of much needed farming lands or forestation areas, leading to even starvation. (Ortavski, 2000; Todorova, 1996) The later emergence of the nation states at the end of the First World War by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire has led to many different versions of the Pomak history under each nation-state. Pomaks had converted to Islam under Ottoman duress (according to Bulgarians, Macedonians, Greeks), or lost their original language due to (admittedly voluntary) linguistic assimilation (according to Turks, Albanians), or both their language and religion through these processes (the Greeks). (Apostolov, 1996) For all these nations, the inclination to claim the Pomaks had less to do with any real sympathy for Pomaks as a kindred population and more to do with their strategic value in ethnographic battles over the disputed territories. (Neuburger, 2004) This biased, nationalist approach to local history of Pomaks dominated Balkan writings. All those aspects of Pomaks’ culture that coincided with majority customs were embraced as “native” proofs of ethnic/national religious brotherhood, while disparities were ascribed to “foreign” influences that had been imposed under different occupation periods. The policies geared towards handling the Pomaks, in general, oscillated between two extremes: either complete assimilation or complete ignorance and isolation between different states as well as between different regimes in the same state. (Koksal, 2004)As much as there has been similar policies and reactions, local realities of Pomak history has been shaped by many different dynamics exclusive to their own experiences. Hence, I believe, it is still an obligation for us to closely examine Pomak experience under each nationstate to identify the unifying patterns which have led to Turkification among Pomaks.