As one reconnoitres the catalogue of historical pursuits, an unshakable aenigma emerges: archaeology is being disrespected. In fact, some pedagogues go so far as to diminish archaeology by omitting the second “a”, reducing it to the aenemic archeology.
While some say an a-less spelling is much more oeconomical, the real argument is that the added “a” is positively mediaeval, an artefact of a by-gone time. Some of the more colourful wags have even said the extra “a” is as attractive as a moustache on a Madonna.
Archaeologists, rattling their sabres , naturally refute this. They place a praemium on what they see as the proper spelling. “It’s too plaine,” they say, “and it impugns the honour of our noble profession.”
Hoping to find a decisive answer Wikipaedia was consulted , but it remains in the centre. The Society for American Archaeology was also consulted, but they were more interested in etymology than spelling.
Despite harbouring such strong sentiments, archaeologists claim they will keep their good humour while continuing to dig metre by metre. They feel their work is important and shouldn’t be demeaned by an accepted alternative spelling. Besides, they say, anyone who spells archaeology otherwise is clearly an amoeba’s arse.