|
Post by terroreign on Nov 29, 2010 2:45:22 GMT -5
Yes, by Turkic I meant Bulgar/Kuman Turkic....there influence was definitely felt in the region, besides the Bulgar empire, and the plenty of toponyms (Kumanovo, ect). Although I guess in the looks, they do not appear much different than Sarmatian/Iranians, similar eyes, darker features, ect.
The area has for some time just been a crossroads between Serb, Bulgar, and Greek realms, with Aromanians, Lesser Slavic tribes and Albanians thrown in. Which prevents the region from having any single "look".
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Nov 29, 2010 5:57:55 GMT -5
It's true, they do not have a look. No mans land? More like every mans land. But you know, the same thing can be said of Croats too for example. Some Croats look southern European while others look like Germans. They are mixed as well but Croatia is certainly no no mans land. It's just the genetic make up of the people. Same with Macedonians. We have genetic input from all our surrounding countries and there's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Nov 29, 2010 20:50:04 GMT -5
Serbians are more mixed than Macedonians, even their genes are all over the place. But their looks are stabilized, or harmonized if you will. Dark, blonde they still look Serbian.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Nov 29, 2010 23:18:59 GMT -5
That's a good point. But that could mean that Macedonians have only recently been brought together as an ethnic unit so it will take time to develop a distinct look. While Serbs have been mixing with each other for a longer time.
|
|