Dan Shall Judge: The Danites and Iron Age Israel’s Connection with the Denyen Sea People

1. Introduction

The tribe of Dan has never played a large role in Israel’s history, at least so far as the Biblical memory goes. According to various traditions contained in the Yahwist account, ¹ they were descendants of one of Jacob’s 12 sons. Dan, as one of those 12 tribes, is perhaps one of the least mentioned. As Yadin notes, ‘Most scholars who have made a study of the Tribe of Dan … admit that much of the information supplied about it is strange and puzzling’. ² Allotted its land last of the tribes upon Joshua’s conquest and mentioned only a handful of times, it has often been viewed with nothing more than passing curiosity by both scholars and laity alike. Its single moment of biblical fame, like a flickering but persistent light, is the iconic story of Samson and his many escapades (Judg. 13-16).

Yet, this insignificant and overlooked tribe has attracted some special attention by scholars due to its possible connections with peoples outside of Israel. To be more blunt, they have garnered the right to the spotlight in Israel’s history precisely for the possibility that they are not in fact Israelite at all.

2. The contradiction

The information provided in Judges and Joshua is quite simply confusing and, more importantly, contradictory. In order to piece together the early history of the Danite tribe, one has to make sense of this early evidence. On the one hand, one has the book of Judges which in one portion depicts the Danite tribe as having lived on the coast alongside the Philistines (Judg. 5.17). Their relations, while antagonistic at this point, were apparently friendly enough to allow for the possibility of political marriages. They are associated with metallurgy as well (Exod. 31.6; 35.34; 38.23; cf. 2 Chron. 2.13).

On the other hand, the book of Judges also depicts the Danite tribe as migrating inland and curiously notes that until that time, the tribe of Dan had received no land or inheritance among the Israelites (Judg. 18.1). This begs the inevitable question, ‘Why were Samson and the other Danites depicted as Israelites living near the coastline if they were in fact not being treated like the other Israelite tribes (perhaps, not even being recognized as Israelite at all)?’

To complicate matters further, the book of Joshua says that the Danites lost their original land (Josh. 19.47). Earlier in the text, it reports that the Danites had been given land by Joshua along the coast in many areas occupied with Philistines, such as Ekron and Timnah (Josh. 19.40-46). This, of course, stands in direct contradiction to Judg. 18.1 which says that the Danites never had a heritage among the tribes. And in fact, Joshua’s account, although listing a number of cities as being allotted to Dan, never details their conquest (as it does for the other tribes’ lands), nor does it include those cities’ kings among the list of 31 conquered kings in Josh. 12.

What both sources seem to agree on is that the Danites were remembered as having initially lived on the coast alongside the Philistines and, likewise, later having sought a home further inland by conquering Laish and renaming it Dan. What they disagree on is whether the tribe of Dan’s living arrangements on the coast were given as an Israelite heritage (gained during the conquest) or whether the Danites were never given such an inheritance because they already lived on the coast from the beginning and ended up creating their own Israelite heritage later.

3. An adopted tribe?

Dan, as a tribe, is quite unique in many ways when compared with its tribal neighbors in ancient Israel. As Stager notes, ‘In biblical tradition there are important differences between Dan and the other tribes of Israel’. ³ Unlike most of the other tribes, Dan was said to have been allotted by Joshua a large strip of land on the coastline (Josh. 19.40-48), in and around Philistine territory. Likewise, aside from their strategic location on the coast, they are said to have seafaring ships of their own which they make use of around the 12th century (Judg. 5.17). This last detail has befuddled and confused biblical scholars for centuries. The Song of Deborah would lead one to believe that the ancient Israelites were familiar with seafaring, and yet there are no further references to the Danite profession, and soon after, during the narrative of Solomon’s reign, it is reported that the Israelites have little to no understanding of seafaring or boats. ⁴

Finally, in an odd coincidence, the tribe of Dan does not, like the other tribes, have an extensively provided genealogy (see Gen. 46.23; Num. 26.42). In fact, they do not have much of any at all. When Genesis recounts the legendary descendants of each tribe, Dan comes up the shortest of all the tribes with only one descendant (Gen. 46.23). This is exceptionally odd and indicates that the Danites had trouble remembering (or justifying) their connection to Israel’s past. Scholars have noted that some references in Judges indicate that the Danites were a semi-nomadic tribe before their migration north (Judg. 18.21;25). ⁵ Likewise, the Danite tribe is represented from their earliest beginnings, quite distinctly from others, as being the product of mixed marriages (Lev. 410-11), a tradition that appears to have continued during the Bronze Age as evidenced by the stories of Samson and Solomon (Judg. 14.1-5; 2 Chron. 2.13-14).

In fact, adding to the problem, even with the example of Dan’s arguably most famous leader, Samson, it does not appear that the Danites held any special relation to the rest of Israel. The stories of Samson as a ‘Judge of Israel’ actually only detail stories that affect the Danites and never relate details regarding the other 11 tribes. A natural reading of his story would lead someone to the assumption that he was merely a judge of his own tribe and nothing more. In fact, as Yadin notes, ‘The fact is that Samson and his family maintains close ties with the Philistines alone’. ⁶ These and other reasons have led a number of scholars to suggest that the loose and odd associations between the larger body of Israel and Dan are due to the fact that the Danites were possibly not originally Israelite at all in their origins.

Some have pointed to Gen. 49.16 as an indication that Dan originally began as a non-Israelite people. The text reports that ‘Dan shall judge his people as one of the Tribes of Israel’. ⁷ Different explanations have been offered for this text, explaining it as (a) a prophecy regarding Samson, (b) a statement reflecting the small and insignificant size of the tribe, or even (c) as an indicator that Dan was the head of the tribe. Yadin rejects these theories and instead argues that ‘the straightforward meaning of this verse appears rather to signify some kind of Amphyctionic Council admitting the Tribe of Dan into the Covenant of the Tribes of Israel’. The text then, Yadin argues, indicates that Dan will be allowed to judge his people as one of the tribes precisely because ‘Dan would appear to have been outside the Covenant’. ⁸

It also appears that there are hints in the book of Judges that indicate that the tribe of Dan did not initially worship YHWH. In the story of Judg. 18, when Dan migrates northward, it tells the story of how they acquired a priest descended from Moses. Although this priest is said to have many ‘idols’ or gods, it is plausible to assume that the priest was a henotheist who worshiped YHWH. In this case, the adoption of a priest descended from Moses seems to symbolize an adoption of Yahwism itself and would provide further evidence that the tribe was not originally of an Israelite origin. At the very least, as Yadin notes, ‘there is some hint of a certain change that came about in the religion and worship of the Tribe of Dan’. ⁹ Margalith is more explicit when he writes that the texts ‘indicate that before the incident with Micah they did not worship Yahweh’. ¹⁰

4. The Danites or Denyen?

One of the few consistent details in Judges regarding the Danites is their close proximity and relationship with the Philistines. To better understand the Philistines and their connection with the Danites, it is helpful to become more acquainted with what the Philistines were: a sea people. The Sea Peoples were a ‘shifting coalition of groups with Aegean and Anatolian roots’. ¹¹ Although the Bible only refers to the Philistines, we know of a total of eight other Sea Peoples who both existed alongside and some who migrated with the Philistines to the land of Canaan. Egyptian sources relate events and battles connected with the migrations of these Sea Peoples, specifically during the reigns of Merneptah and Ramses II. ¹²

Stone notes that ‘One of the Sea Peoples mentioned in ancient texts bear a name parallel to Dan, allowing for grammatical endings: danuna/denyen (Egyptian), dnym (Phoenician), and danaoi (Greek)’. ¹³ It wasn’t long before someone made the connection with one of the Hebrew tribes. Cyrus H. Gordan was the first to propose a connection between the Israelite Danites and the Denyen Sea Peoples between 1962 and 1965, followed by and popularized by Michael Astour ¹⁴ and Yigael Yadin ¹⁵ between 1965 and 1968. ¹⁶

According to various documents of Egyptian origin, we can safely say that we know both the Philistines and Tjeker were two Sea Peoples who migrated to the coast of Israel. Recent archaeological excavations at El-ahwat, originally thought to have been related to early Israelite settlements, also have recently shown potential evidence that the Shardana/Sherden migrated to the land and made a home. ¹⁷ The likelihood then that the Denyen, who are recorded in Egyptian texts and reliefs as having been in the area at the same time as the other three groups, would also be on the coast of Canaan is much higher than previously assumed. In fact, the only area unoccupied by Sea Peoples which could have been occupied by the Denyen is the area which Joshua and Judges indicate that the tribe of Dan resided. ¹⁸

Since the 1960s when Yadin made his initial proposal, a number of experts have continued to push the theory, including both biblical scholars and archaeologists. ¹⁹ Opinion has remained mixed, with some like Stager finding the identification with the Denyen as ‘dubious’, ²⁰ Bartusch finding it ‘speculative’, ²¹ and Mobley admitting that it ‘remains a conundrum’. ²² Some though, like Nelson, dismiss the idea altogether, noting that although ‘Dan is related to ships in Judg. 5.17 in an unexplained way … there is no reason to connect the tribe to the Denyen/Danaoi among the Sea Peoples’. ²³ With all due respect to those scholars, this article proposes to disagree and, like Gordon and Rendsburg, finds that the previously discussed factors ‘combine to support the theory that the tribe of Dan originated as one of the Sea Peoples’. ²⁴

One of the more overlooked pieces of evidence for a connection between the Sea Peoples and the tribe of Dan is the battle against Sisera in Judg. 4-5. Ignoring the reference to ships in 5.17, we might naturally wonder why the Danites chose not to battle against Sisera. One possibility that has been proposed for this is the interpretation that Sisera was not a Canaanite. Although a general serving a Canaanite king, his name has been proposed to actually derived from the Shardana Sea People in Sardinia. Likewise, the capital of Sisera, identified as El-ahwat, appears to have been home to the Shardana according to the site’s excavator Adam Zertal. ²⁵ Working with Zertal’s proposal, it is possible that the Danites, themselves a Sea People or with ancestral ties to it, did not wish to hurt their relations with another related group. We see a similar hesitance toward battling other Sea Peoples in the Danites’ complete reluctance to battle the Philistines during Samson’s rulership (Judg. 14-16). Another possible proposal, put forth by Redford, is to understand Sisera’s name as Egyptian, a conclusion which would again explain the hesitancy for the Danites/Denyen. It could be that Sisera, if Egyptian, was an employer of the Danites, creating a situation in which it was disadvantageous for the Danites to join the Israelite tribes in battle. Alternatively though, it could be the case, regardless of whether Sisera was Canaanite, that because the Danites were independent, they simply did not wish to become involved in any conflict no matter whom it was against. ²⁶

Work done by Weinfeld on the migration narrative of Dan in Judg. 18 has revealed fascinating parallels between the Danite story and Aegean settlement patterns. ²⁷ He notes that ‘the Sea Peoples used to travel in a similar manner as they migrated’. More recently, Na’aman discovered even greater parallels between the Danite tale and another Greek migration narrative. ²⁸ Although he has proposed that this is because of possible borrowing on the part of Judges from other known Mediterranean stories, the parallels may actually be further evidence of the connection between the Danites and the Aegean culture.

It is perhaps the stories of the Danite hero Samson which actually reveal many similarities between the Israelite tribe and the Mycenaean Denyen. Samson has, to be quite frank, many parallels to the Greek myth of Hercules. As Galpaz-Feller notes, ‘when one examines his deeds, one finds an almost absolute parallel between the biblical story of Samson and legends of the Denyen tribes’. ²⁹ She notes that in 10th-century Greece, established myths often mixed with local folktales. As such, although Samson as a figure may have some sort of historicity behind him, she argues that ‘The Denyen legends clearly underlie the description of Samson and the account of his life’. ³⁰ McDermott concurs, writing that ‘It is possible that the present form of the story of Samson is based on an earlier legend from the Sea Peoples who became part of the Israelites’. ³¹ Likewise, Rosenbaum writes that he does not believe the similarities are due to coincidence. He notes with a bit of flair that ‘The Danites may well have been Greek-speakers’. ³²

These memories appear to have remained even into the late Second Temple period. According to 1 Macc. 12.20-23, the Jews believed (and were telling the Greeks) that the Spartans were children of Abraham. This claim was repeated even later by Josephus (Ant. 12.4.10). ³³ According to Welborn, ‘The legend between Jews and Spartans can be traced back to pre-Maccabean times’. ³⁴ There are possible reasons for how this legend came about. The ancient historian Herodotus claimed that the Spartans were descended from Hercules. ³⁵ If the connection between Samson and Hercules (the Danites and Denyen) was vaguely remembered, it is possible to explain why these later Jews could make these claims.

5. Recent archaeological evidence and a new synthesis

Excavations at the ancient site of Dan have helped to elucidate much about our questions regarding this mysterious tribe of Israel. Beginning in 1966, Avraham Biran began excavations at Tel Dan. Rafael Frankel notes that, in general, ‘the pottery of Upper Galilee is different from the collared-rim forms used further south in Samaria and Judah … However, at Tel Dan, there was a mixture of Upper Galilee forms, collared-rim forms and Philistine forms’. ³⁶ Confirming certain scholarly suspicions, Rosenbaum notes that ‘Bronze Age tombs from the site of Tel Dan contain imported Mycenaean and Cypriote wares, which one might expect if the inhabitants of the city, at that time still called Laish, were from the Mediterranean’. ³⁷ So foreign from Israel are some of the archaeological finds that Römer writes in a recent monograph that ‘Dan probably did not become Israelite until the eighth century’. ³⁸

Previous excavations at the site of Tell el-Qadi (Tel Dan) have revealed a large residential area from the 12–11th century that lends evidence to an Aegean influence. Ilan notes the presence of originally Aegean, Syrian, and Egyptian pithoi, pottery, and ritual items in the homes. Also discovered was a cultic structure that is of a type common in the Aegean (and found at the Philistine site of Tel Qasile). According to a report on the material culture, ‘The finds indicate that the peoples living in Dan were a mixed bunch who brought their eating habits, grooming practices, weapons of choice, and their gods with them to the city’. ³⁹ David Ilan’s ongoing work, according to the same report, leads him, as the current leading archaeological authority on the topic, to believe that the Danites living at Dan were not originally Israelites, but members of the Denyen Sea People. ⁴⁰

So what does all of this mean? Frankel concludes that ‘The inhabitants of Dan fit the profile of a migrating group influenced by different peoples, and part of that influence reflects the culture of one of the Sea Peoples, the Philistines’. ⁴¹ Rosenbaum speculates that the ‘Danites were a Greek-speaking coastal trading colony isolated by the destruction of their mother country, hence increasingly vulnerable to pressure from native neighbors and finally forced to move inland’. ⁴² McDermott concurs, arguing that

A possible inference is that some of the Denyen, remembered as a seafaring people, settled on the coast along with the Philistines but later were forced out in a conflict with them and eventually joined with the newly emerging Israelites as the tribe of Dan. ⁴³

Ilan goes even further in this hypothesis, stating that he believes that while Laish was under Egyptian rule, Sea Peoples such as the Denyen were hired as mercenaries to protect certain areas and these mercenaries married the local Canaanite women. When civilization collapsed in the 12th century, the Egyptian elite moved away from Canaan, leaving many Egyptians, mercenaries and mixed families behind to form together a new identity. He believes that ‘these people who stayed behind at Tel Dan—Danuna, Egyptians, Canaanites and various other hybrid people—created a new amalgam society, and it is these who would become the Danites of biblical lore’. ⁴⁴

6. Conclusion

Although appearing to be a small (for the most part unremarkable) and finally forgotten group in the overall cumulative work of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, it is strangely depicted by the exilic redactors of the Torah as having been the second largest tribe out of the 12 (Num. 1.38-39; 2.25-26; 31). It seems plausible that this inflated number is indeed a faint echo of the possible historical reality that the Danites were once part of the many and numerous Sea Peoples.

Given that Amos 9.8 relates that the Sea Peoples (simply referred to as Philistines) were led by their God in a special divinely orchestrated migration, no different than Israel’s, is it that surprising to imagine that this group might have actually considered them as part of the larger people of Israel? When Deut. 2.23 says that God gave the Sea Peoples (or Caphtorim) a designated allotted land, can this be the historical memory of the Danites’ previous inheritance? Since some of the Sea Peoples already practiced circumcision, their identification as sharing in the promise of the Exodus may not be hard to imagine. ⁴⁵

As McDermott rightly notes,

The relationship of the Canaanites, Philistines, and Israelites was more complex than the Book of Judges would lead us to believe. There were many groups present during the upheavals at the beginning of the Iron Age, and the people who became the Israelites probably included a mix of all of them. We should not look for one single origin of the Israelites but for multiples origins. ⁴⁶

Research in this area is still new and remains ripe for discovery. There are other tantalizing possibilities, not heavily explored, related to Israel’s connection with the Sea Peoples. For instance, other tribes of Israel are mysteriously linked with the sea. The tribe of Zebulun is promised to ‘settle at the shore of the sea’ and to become ‘a haven for ships’ (Gen. 49.13), and Issachar has similar ideas (Deut. 33.18). ⁴⁷ Asher is also strangely described as residing on the seashore with ship ports (Judg. 5.17). ⁴⁸ Might we discover that more of the people of Israel, besides Dan, had close connections to the Sea Peoples and other groups? ⁴⁹

When all is said and done, such discoveries help to reinforce the need for both critical study of the Biblical Texts and continued efforts in archaeological excavations (and the continued need to bond the two together in healthy partnerships). The Danites may still remain a mystery for now, but there remains the possibility that eventually that may all change.