I study British propaganda during WWI, so naturally people ask me why WWI started or why people fought WWI at all. I actually don't mind at all. I personally believe the question "why did WWI start" will remain perennially controversial. For the laymen, I usually like to play a little game. Ask them who they think started it, and whatnot. For more serious answers, I direct them to "An Identity of Opinion: Historians and July 1914."

I also try to caution people when they say something like, "Germany started WWI" or, "Russia deserves the greatest amount of blame for escalating what should have just been another minor, Balkan war." I respond with, "Who is 'Germany?' Who is 'Russia?' Does the entire nation deserve responsibility for the war? If not, who specifically are we talking about?"

When I tell non-historians that I study drug use and addiction, they generally give me one of two responses: either, "should drugs be legalized?" or "let me tell you about my craziest experience with (insert drug here)..."

But historians in my field are generally preoccupied with policy, policing, politics, scientific discourse, and recovery. Of course, those subjects have the most sources! I'm looking forward to forthcoming scholarship on consumption and its associated rituals, among other topics, as more and more historians try to find users in the archives.

I'll answer this from two perspectives: archaeology and economic/social history.

Archaeology is, of course, probably perpetually the most lopsided field because what information we have is invariably dictated by where excavations have been focused. If you want to study trade networks, for example, if you look at Roman Britain you can find intricate information of secondary and tertiary roadways, settlements distinguished by political and demographic means, and some of the finest "big data" available in any archaeological discipline in the form of coin and potsherd maps. Britain, however, was a fairly unimportant region of the empire, much less central to the culture and economy than, say, Spain. But there are only a handful of regions of Spain excavated to anything like the detail of England, and so even though there is much more information under Spanish than British soil, the historical importance of British archaeologists and universities have made the latter far better understood. And even Spain is better excavated than, say Romania, which is fascinatingly fertile avenue of information that remains largely untapped (although admittedly my shaky French could be the bigger problem here).

Within social and economic history, a problem that is starting to be corrected is a very poor understanding of the rural population outside the villas. The Roman peasant is still a very poorly understood figure, and one that the archaeologist's tools are perfectly suited for. There are a couple projects under way on this issue now, but it will still take a lot of research to get a good understanding of the lifestyle and habits of the group that made up the majority of the Roman Empire.

Within Mesoamerican archaeology if one is going to examine material culture the two most focused things are ceramics and lithics. There is little attention paid to groundstone tools other than to note unique appearances. I am utterly clueless on groundstone, its uses within Mesoamerica, its manufacture, its context, etc and I am not the only one.

What are certain areas in classical studies that you see as over-covered vs under covered? Is it all similar to what is most popular similar to what is popular in pop culture ?

Coming from a background in Canadian history, though I haven't progressed to graduate studies yet, I can definitely say that the War of 1812 (1812-1815) is disproportionately studied. It wasn't an unimportant conflict, and is necessary to understand the tensions that existed between the British and the United States, but Canadian scholars tend to over-emphasize its importance.

Nationalistic historians will stress that the War of 1812 was a coming of age moment where the hardy Canadian militia repelled the greedy Americans in the name of His Majesty. This is part of what is known as the "militia myth", a theme that runs through centuries of Canadian history. However, it wasn't the Canadian militia who defeated the Americans, but rather the British regulars. Even the contribution of Native American allies, led by legendary leaders like Tecumseh, was more significant than that of the Canadian irregular forces.

The contribution of the Canadian militia, et les voltigeurs au Quebec, is not to be dismissed. But at the end of the day, Canada was on the defensive until the British started to send reinforcements from Europe after the first defeat of Napoleon in 1814. And even the battles fought and won on Canadian soil would have been massacres without the leadership of British officers and the experience of the British regular troops.