Hi! I'm studying anthropology and I'm really fascinated with the nation state and borders, and the meaning of those. I'm trying to find info on how the modern state as we know it came to be. I've found info on the ancient states but I can only find a little on how the state took it's current form, for example that we first had border control after WW2.

Also, any good reading material on this?

Thank you!

I believe Muhammed was illiterate, yet somehow composed the Koran. Even if someone dictated his words, wouldn't he still have had to have read various Jewish and Christian documents, which form a source for the Koran?

In a similar vein, I don't know if Joseph Smith was completely illiterate, but he may still not have been educated enough to compose the Book of Mormon.

I know that different people have different experiences. I just want to have a general understanding of what to expect. I'm graduating what is equal to High School in the US this year, and I have to previous experiences at a University.

English is not my primary language. Sorry for any grammatical errors. I'm also sorry if I've broken a rule or two. Still new to this whole reddit thing.

Edit: I'm from Norway and expecting to study in Norway.

I was wondering when the differentation of the Romance languages out of (vulgar) Latin occured.

Was this already happening when there still was an overarching governmental apparatus (eg. local dialects, even though at official situations like government, court, etc they used proper Latin), or did this start after the disappearance of the Western Roman Empire?

As the title says, how would a Japanese-American, citizen or otherwise, have been treated during internment? Would they have been sent to a camp if they lived on the West Coast? I would imagine there were not many couples in such a marriage, as if I recall both Oregon and California banned it, but perhaps there might have been some in Washington? Or who had moved from Hawaii or elsewhere?

Maybe more of a linguistics question than a history one but I've always heard that part of the reason the Imperial Rescript on Surrender wasn't immediately understood is because the Emperor addressed it in language that only the court and upper-class families could easily understand. So I'm kind of curious as to how stark the difference actually was, and particularly if the Emperor had to "re-learn" the language in order to engage with the common people postwar.

Were there Jacobites who supported James II despite being Protestant? When one studies the Jacobite Rebellions, we are told that a major reason why many Highland Scots initially supported James II is because of his Catholicism. Yet were there also supporters of James II for political or ideological reasons?

I have read in the past on how the Navajo code talkers were never deciphered by the Japanese. But I'm curious as to what the Japanese thought of the language. Did they suspect it to be a Native American language?

I understand that people living in the Middle Ages cared more about surviving than taking selfies and posting them to Reddit, thus documenting every waking moment of every day. But surely there must be something that can be used to definitively state when a movement started.

The reason I'm asking this is because of the Middle Ages. I was curious as to when they started exactly. I Googled the question and Google immediately told me the Middle ages happened 500-1500 AD. Yet the first two links Google provided disagreed and claimed the Middle Ages started earlier than that and ended earlier as well. Why is it so hard to determine when the Middle Ages (and history in general)?

(To be clear, I'm not criticizing anyone, I just want to know what makes making timelines so difficult and imprecise.)

I really enjoyed this book and others by this author. Is a world lit only by fire considered a accurate description of the era in question?

So much media about the fall of the Berlin Wall and dissolution of the USSR paint it as a "global celebration", but how did socialists in the West feel about it? What were the statements made by the large socialist parties in Spain or France? What about the small amount of socialists living in the US or Canada, or the large amount of socialists living in Latin America?

To knock the Russians out of the war Germany helped Lenin rise to power in war torn Russia.

Socialist thinking swept across Europe, and there was talk of a world revolution. I would like to know more about this as the idea that it seemed possible many intrigues me.

Who and what should I be reading, and can someone please give me some background information?

Why didn't Scandinaiva have any colonies in Africa? Did they want them or did they have a negative view on colonization.

As we know, Spain has a history of naval prowess. From the large number of Spanish explorers who discovered parts of the new world to the notorious Spanish Armada, Spain was arguably the world's most intimidating naval power. My question, is why? What were some causes that allowed Spain to rise up to the power that they attained? My best guess is their location in relation to the Mediterranean. What are some of your thoughts?

Watching AMC's Turn reminded me of the Queen's Rangers, a Loyalist unit that was commanded by John Graves Simcoe, the dude who founded my city.

Anyway I was wondering how the regulars in the British Army viewed the Loyalist regiments like the Queen's Rangers that were raised in North America. Did the regulars think the loyalist regiments were a bunch of ragtag misfit colonials? Or did they respect them and see them as equals?

EDIT: Were there also British ranger type units during the War of 1812?