Gentlemen, I've never really understood the ardor with which the exact location of a "city" near the "dead sea" is prosecuted. Based on reasonable agreement by several sources, we know that the Essenes *probably* lived scattered about several locations. It does not seem important, nor likely, that these different writers *had* to be discussing the exact same site. In fact, it is quite possible that in generation one habitation replaced another for a "current concentration" of a regional center of Essenes. And thus each writer we quote in these posts could have actually been referring to a different location for the SAME regional center. Could someone explain to me the value of disputing WHICH location was "really" meant when, in fact, ALL of these locations could have been simultaneously occupied by our resourceful Essenes? We are not digging for Troy here. And it would seem some of the "negative" positions are geared more to "prove there isn't a final proof" than to advance the study of the Essenes as a people or an institution. George For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
