Walter W. Baucum

"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." - (II CHRONICLES 7:14)

We of United Hebrew Congregations believe that in order to understand who the Ancient of Days is and to understand His Plan for man we must understand who Israel is and where they are located in the earth today. We also believe that all the world needs to Quest for the knowledge of who He is. Why is it important to understand where the Hebrew Children of Israel are located? It is important because the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) are written primarily to or about these people. So what difference does that make? Simply that when the Calamities at the End of the Age (Tribulation or the Time of Jacob’s Trouble) begin to fall upon these people they need to know who they are, where they are mentioned in Scriptures, and why this is happening to them. The Hebrews consisted of twelve tribal nations that were taken into captivity by their enemies and ten of the tribes have not yet returned. To initiate the Quest for the Ancient of Days and the Lost Ten Tribes we will take the approach of tracing a single tribe in their many journeys over time. The tribe of Dan was prophesied to leave way marks along their trail and this is our attempt to follow that trail. We hope you enjoy the journey.

This is the second instalment of an article titled Tracing Dan published and copyrighted by United
Hebrew Congregations of Picayune, MS. and is reproduced with their kind permission.



WHY then, is it important to know that Dan settled in Greece? Because we find that these people who settled much of early Greece and the islands near it also drifted down through time and settled parts of North Africa. Why this itself is important will become clearer later when we discuss America. Again, time does not permit our tracking of Dan through its captivity (those who were still left and associated with the other ten northern tribes) by Assyria around 700 B.C.E. The Israelites were placed around Lakes Van and Urmia, then later migrated westward, both over land and by sea, to settle in Europe, Spain, England, and Scandinavia. While this was happening, though, earlier Danites (as well as parts of the other Israelite tribes) had already settled in many areas of the world that their brothers came to at later times.

Even before the captivity by Assyria, Dan had begun intermarrying with Phoenicia, had gone to sea with them, had colonized and settled virtually the same areas of the Mediterranean and other parts of the world, and had monopolized the tin and copper trade with them. This tin was obtained from “Tarshish,” or Spain, and from the British Isles. The “Phoenicians” who supplied bronze to the Middle East undoubtedly included Dan. In northern Galilee, a well-developed metallurgical industry which produced bronze, indicates the tin used in it came from Britain. Later, a name given to Cornwall and Devon in Britain was Daunonia or Dannonia, and other sources collected by Yair Davidy prove that Israelites from the Tribe of Dan were present in that area. The Phoenician mines in Cornwall (according to local tradition) are all connected with Jews, meaning in their terms, Hebrews from Israel in general. An early British historian, Camden, stated that the mine of Cornwall had been worked under the direction of Israelites from the Tribe of Asher.
(1) Asher, Dan, and Naphtali were associated together often, including their camping order in the Wilderness for forty years after the Exodus.

“Why did Dan dwell in ships?” asks the prophetess Deborah in Judges 5:17, somewhere in the period 1300-1200 B.C.E. Why, indeed, says Davidy, if not to make use of them?

Other aspects of so-called “Phoenician” civilization are now accredited by many researchers to Israelites. This includes alphabetical writing, ivory working, architectural innovations, etc. An Assyrian inscription from 879 B.C.E. lists part of the booty taken from Phoenician cities and includes walrus-ivory. The nearest place walrus ivory could have been obtained was in Scandinavia.

Presently, I still believe the Phoenicians were of Esau, but Davidy suggests that they might even have been just another of the Israelite tribes. Numbers 26:23 says,
“Of the sons of Issachar after their families...of Pua, the family of the Puni....” The Hebrew name Pua (Phua or “Puni”) is derived from a root denoting a certain plant used to make red dye. The name “Phoenician” has the same connotation.(3) The Romans called the Phoenicians “Poenes” or “Puni, and the Punic Wars were fought between the Phoenician - descended Carthaginians, and the Romans. Considering this further, might this Roman appellation have been applied because so many Danites and/or lssacharites were mixed among the Phoenicians?

Perhaps a final comment on the Danite and Phoenician “intermarriage” explains in part my interest in Dan. Dan was different, almost a rebel. There are expressions in scripture concerning Dan that infer Dan was estranged from the other Israelites at an early date. I have mentioned my belief that some of the Tribe of Dan left Egypt many years before the Exodus. Dan was a proud people (remember Samson?) and probably refused to be enslaved by their Egyptian taskmakers. When the going got tough there in Egypt, the “tough” departed to try their luck elsewhere. Judges 5:17 (already quoted) asks,
“Why did Dan
remain in ships?”
Genesis 49:16 says, “Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.” Even Judges 18:29 is strange: “And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father who was born unto Israel.” (4)

So why in the case of Dan (and not of the other tribes) does there seem to be a need to affirm that Dan was born unto Israel? Some “experts” believe Dan was not even an Israelite tribe, but an alien people adopted into Israel. Also, why say that Dan would be,
“as one of the tribes of Israel”? To me, it indicates that Dan was somehow different, not an alien people adopted into Israel. Dan, in the land of Israel, adopted foreign customs different from those of most of Israel, and Dan also went into exile at an early stage. Eldad HaDani, in the 800’s C.E. related a tradition that after the northern ten tribes under Jeroboam (928-907 B.C.E.) seceded from Judah, there erupted hostilities between the two halves of the Israelite nation. Rather than engage in a fractricidal conflict, the Tribe of Dan went into exile of their own accord; i.e., they left the land before the Assyrians came down and captured Northern Israel.(5) Whatever happened, Dan was different, alienated from, estranged from, the rest of Israel and went off on its own to seek its destiny. My belief is that many nations of the world have been blessed because of this pioneer of Israel, Dan.

Ezekiel 27:12 says,
“Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs.” Briefly, Dan-Phoenicia, first in Tyre and Sidon, later built Carthage in North Africa to regulate their western trade, and they were associated with Tarshish (same as “Tarsis,” “Tartessos,”) in Spain. Tartessos once controlled most of Spain and Gaul (France), serving as an emporium for goods from Gaul and Britain (and perhaps America). Avienus wrote that all the southeast area of Spain was controlled by Tartessos. This is the original area of intensified Phoenician colonization and the place of “Samarian” metal production.(6)

Tarshish in scripture is the name of a son of Javan (Genesis 10:4), which indicated Greek connections. Tarshish is also the name of a grandson of Benjamin (I Chronicles 7:10).

The people who settled the Iberian Peninsula later migrated on into Britain, other parts of Scandinavia, and across the Atlantic Ocean into America. These Danite-Phoenicians controlled the tin and copper trade in the Mediterranean and built huge ocean-going vessels with two, three, four, and sometimes even five rows of oars on each side. According to Julius Caesar, they were bigger, faster, and more manoeuverable than the Roman ships. The only reason Rome destroyed them in the First Punic War was because of the Roman grappling iron. The scriptures say that the ships of Tarshish were the largest seagoing vessels known to the Semitic world, and the name eventually was applied to any large ocean-going vessel. Foreign maritime commerce was at least as orderly and nearly as complicated in ancient times as it is now.

Remember the Greek-North African connection mentioned earlier? Up to 30 C.E., the Greek shippers who operated the eastern trade routes for Mediterranean markets required three years for a round-trip voyage to India and back, following the tortuous coastline of Asia. About 30 C.E., an Alexandrian skipper named Hippalos discovered how to use the monsoon winds to cross the Indian Ocean in the space of only three months. He returned from India in less than a year, thereby revolutionizing the trade routes. Within a year upwards of 100 ships were setting out for India each season, to return to Egypt laden with silks, spices, and gems in return for Roman gold. Soon Ceylon and eastern India were added to the trade areas.

These and other similar voyages did not follow the tedious route of the continental coasts, but struck boldly across the continental waters. Monsoon trade winds were used, but what else did these ancient people know? In 239 B.C.E., Eurosthenes has calculated the circumference of the world as being about 28,000 miles, an error of excess of only 13 percent. The degree of latitude, then, was mistakenly thought to be some 69 nautical miles instead of 60 miles, its true value. This error was not so great as to forbid successful ocean crossings with a predicted landing point. Longitude was calculated by dead reckoning, a method that continued until long after the time of Columbus. For lack of a magnetic compass, bearings could not be taken in cloudy weather, but the stars and the sun and moon provided data at all other times. The astronomical observations were set into an early type of astrolabe, which, combined with the cross staff for measuring the elevation of the midday sun or other celestial objects at the time of their meridional passage, yielded a direct reading of latitude. By 150 B.C.E., a mechanical computer had been added to the navigational equipment, which could now perform the operations of an astrolabe merely by cranking bronze gears and matching dials.

Maps of the constellations show that early voyagers were well aware of the fixed reference points in the heavens, the pole of rotation of the stars, even though in those days no bright star marked the position of the pole. It is a mistake to think that the so-called age of navigation (of Vasco da Gama and Bartolomeo Diaz and Christopher Columbus) was something entirely new, ushered in by the circumstance that around 1400 C.E. a bright star of the constellation Ursa Minor moved over the position of the pole as the earth’s axis slid in accordance with precession. As we now realize, ancient navigators knew always where the true pole was located, even when there was no polestar, and, after the third century B.C.E., we have maps showing the position of the celestial south pole also, proving that navigators were then crossing the equator in the southern parts of the Pacific Ocean.

As to the relative sizes and strengths of ancient ships in comparison to those used by Columbus, medieval Europe of 1492 was in a state of nautical skill that the ancients, Barry Fell writes, would have regarded as benighted. Columbus’ whole expedition could mount only 88 men, carried on three vessels of which two were only 50 feet in length, about the size of a small Boston fishing boat. Contrast that with the Pharaohs of the Ramesside dynasty, 1200 B.C.E., who could mount expeditions of 10,000 miners across the Indian Ocean to the gold-bearing lands of South Africa and Sumatra. Julius Caesar’s triremes carried 200 men, yet he found his ships outmatched in size, height, and seaworthiness by those of the maritime Celts of Europe.

In Book III of Caesar’s De Bello Gallico , he describes the greatest naval battle he was ever called upon to mount. His adversaries were none other than the Celts of Brittany, whose fleet was swelled by the arrival of a flotilla they had summoned from their allies in Britain. The combined Gallic and British naval armament comprised an immensely powerful force, numbering,
so Caesar tells us, no less than 220 ships, all larger than and superior in construction to those of the opposing Roman navy under Admiral Brutus.

These Celtic ships, says Caesar, were so soundly constructed that they could outride tempestuous or contrary winds upon the very ocean itself without sustaining injury. It is clear that these fine vessels, which towered over the Roman galleys, had the capability of crossing the Atlantic Ocean, “upon the vast open sea,” as Caesar indicates.

The Phoenician ships were superior even to these Celtic ships. Fell relates how in the First Punic War (260-242 B.C.E.) each Carthaginian ship of the line was a quinquireme. These ships were so large that 5 rowers to each oar were required because of the length of the oar to reach the sea. There were 50 or more oars. These rowers, with officers plus 120 marines, made a complement of 400 men. In this war, 334 Carthaginian ships were lost.

Sea trade was started by the Phoenicians as early as the twelfth century B.C.E. By 900 B.C.E., they had established a wealthy and secure string of colonies in the Mediterranean ranging from Malta to the Iberian Peninsula. By 500 B.C.E., Carthage had obtained complete control of the western Mediterranean and destroyed the Greek strongholds in Spain. For the next few centuries up until the Punic Wars, when Carthage was destroyed by the emerging Roman Republic, these Carthaginian Phoenicians prevented all vessels from sailing past the Strait of Gibraltar into the Atlantic Ocean.

Whether they themselves sailed into and across the oceans will be discussed in a later section. Now, though, is a good time to take a closer look at who the Phoenicians really were. Let’s start with a question. Was
“the Canaanite...then in the land” (found in Genesis 12:6 and 13:7) a true descendant of the Canaan who was one of the four sons of Ham? Were they the same in Genesis 9:25, where old father Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants of ‘God’ (‘slave of slaves’ or ‘lowest of slaves’ in Hebrew) shall he be unto his brethren”?

If they were the same, it is incongruous with other scriptures, with archaeology, and with history. The “so-called” Canaanites of the Levant (the Phoenicians) were heirs of a colonial empire such as is only befitting the seven 12-tribed nations of Genesis. Does this sound like “lowly slaves”? Archaeology has revealed that most of these Canaanites were virtually identical to the Israelites, both linguistically and culturally. There is no contradiction in the Holy Scriptures. Although Genesis specifies that Nahor spoke Aramaic, the Semitic dialect of Padan-Aram, there is no mention of any peculiarity in the speech of the Canaanites or that the patriarchs had any trouble in communicating with them. Both Jacob and Laban spoke like the people of
their respective homelands, with no difficulty in understanding.

Although certain Canaanites were dispossessed by Israel, other Canaanites themselves were great supplanters. These Canaanites were called Phoenicians by the Greeks, a word mentioned previously to mean “blood red,” which probably was
a reference to the purple cloth the Phoenicians exported to other nations. It might even have referred to the color of their skin, which is definitely red-tinted even today (Phoenicians being sons of Esau, or, basically, the modern Turks, among others).

The Phoenicians were a technologically advanced people. In Ezekiel 28:3-5, the Eternal tells one of their princes,
“Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: with thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: by thy great wisdom and by thy traffic hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches...."

The Phoenicians were the greatest seafaring merchants of the ancient world. Solomon employed their ships and seamen in his navy and used their technical expertise in building the Temple. They had circumnavigated Africa, had sailed (on open seas) to
Britain and Scandinavia, and, we will find out later in this paper, had sailed to America.

They colonized the Mediterranean, including Carthage, and even challenged Rome for world supremacy. We’ve mentioned already their introducing the alphabet to Europe.

Classical authors believed the Phoenicians were immigrants in the Levant. Herodotus reported their coming from the Erythraean Sea, a broad term including the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea. The Roman historian Justin said they had abandoned their original country because of a great earthquake, settling first near the Sea of Galilee and afterwards on the Mediterranean coast. Some modem historians believe they were made up largely of Semitic emigrants from the Sinai and regions about ancient Edom. Phoenicia and Edom have the same meaning. Both mean “red.”

The Holy Scriptures single out two peoples as being proverbial for their wisdom, the Phoenicians of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:3,12 and Isaiah 23:8; the Temanite Edomites in Jeremiah 49:7, Job 2:11, 22:1, and Obadiah 9.

Melkart, the god of Tyre, was a great hunter, just as Esau had been. Mainland Tyre even bore the name “Ushu,” a name linked to Esau. Eusebius preserved a Phoenician myth of the origin of Tyre. It is the legend of two brothers, Samemroumos, whose name mean “exalted by heaven,” and “Ousoos,” who some believe to personify mainland Tyre (called “Ushu”). Ousoos was a successful hunter. He quarreled with his brother and was thereby forced to seek his fortunes at sea, thus accounting for the Phoenicians’ mastery of the ocean.

When Jacob stole Esau’s birthright, both were blessed by old blind Isaac, although some modern scholars tell us that Esau received no blessing, but rather a curse. They interpret Genesis 27:39 as saying,
"...away from the fatness of the earth. ..and away from the dew of heaven on high.” I don’t see that at all. Nor do any of the ancient writings ever translate Esau’s blessing as only a curse. Jewish tradition, too, has it as a blessing. The KJV doesn’t say “away from” but rather “shall be,” i.e., a blessing.

We find in Genesis 36:6-8 that although Esau had come into great wealth, he voluntarily decided to migrate,
“from the face of his brother Jacob. For their riches were more than they might dwell together; and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them because of their cattle. Thus dwelt Esau in Mount Seir: Esau is Edom.”

In Deuteronomy 2:4, the Eternal tells Israel,
“I have given Mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.”

Numbers 20:17 points out that Mount Seir was blessed with
“fields,” “vineyards,” and “wells.”

Jewish tradition anciently ascribed the supremacy of Greece and Rome to the blessing of Esau.

With all the above, it appears the “Canaanites” that colonized the Mediterranean were the ones to fulfill the promise to Edom, not the son of Noah. Many of these Phoenicians did come to swell the population of certain regions of the Greco-Roman world, and they, with Dan, colonized parts of America, as we shall see later.
“Away from the fatness of the earth” could
perhaps mean that they went to sea to become a great nautical power. In the same tenor, the things said about Dan, some even questioning whether he were a true Israelite tribe, or just a strange people adopted into the sonship of Israel, could have some meaning derived from the fact that he went to sea with these “Canaanites,” thereby forfeiting his proper kinship with his brothers.


Dan, with the other Northern Israelite tribes, went into captivity and exile. A portion of Dan might have been exiled before the other Israelites. Part of Dan is to be identified with the Tribe of Dana in Irish tradition. These people went to Greece from the Middle Eastern region, then to Scandinavia, and from there to Ireland and Britain.

In Scandinavia during the Bronze Age, there existed a highly developed civilization, rich in metallurgical and gold products of a high standard, which produced articles of furniture and implements similar to, or identical with, those known from contemporary
Egypt, Phoenicia, and Mycenean Greece.

Irish legends speak of the Tribe of Dana (Tuatha De Danaan), who were renowned metallurgists and very scientifically adept. They arrived from the “northern isles” after some disaster. The Bronze Age civilization in Scandinavia had come to an end between 500 B.C.E. and 400 B.C.E. because of a sudden climatic change, accompanied by upheavals and foreign invasions. Its population dwindled and finally almost disappeared. Eventually it would be re-populated by newcomers who emerged from

The only “northern isles” to Ireland are those of Scandinavia. The Tribe of Dana had come from the region of Mount Lebanon, say these Irish sources, had sojourned in Greece, had been enslaved, fought with the “Philistines,” then fled north, after which it had come to Ireland. Welsh legends spoke also of the Children of Don, who paralleled the Tribe of Dana.

Remember the connection of Dan with Phoenicia? Israelites from Dan and Nephtali were interconnected with Tyre and with crafts for which Tyre had a reputation. The Phoenicians were experts in the production of bronze as were the Danites in the
northern Galilee. We know that Tyre (Phoenicia) had established a monopoly over the supply of tin to the Middle East. This tin was obtained from Tarshish (i.e., Spain and the British Isles).

Mentioned earlier, excavations at the site of Dan in northern Galilee showed the existence of a well developed metallurgical industry which concentrated on the production of bronze. Analysis of this bronze showed the existence of gold in some specimens, a characteristic of British tin. This indicates that the tin used in Dan (in Israel) came from Britain. An Assyrian inscription from 879 B.C.E. lists part of the booty taken from Phoenician cities and includes walrus-ivory. This walrus ivory undoubtedly came from Scandinavia.

Who were the Scythians? Different ancient writers spelled it in different ways: Scyth, Scot, Scotch, Sakai, Saka, Skuthai (Greek), and Scyth or Scythi (Latin). Strong’s Concordance #5521 is Heb. “Sukkah”- literally “dwellers in booths,” i.e., nomads or wanderers. The Feast of Booths/Succoth/Tabernacles is the only Holy day to be retained after the “restoration
of all things.”
It was instituted to commemorate Israel’s wandering in the wilderness (Leviticus 23:40-43; Zechariah 14:16; also Genesis 33:17). Scythians were none other than Israelites.

The conclusion of the matter is that Phoenicia definitely was in Scandinavia, Dan was a part of Phoenicia, and wherever Phoenicia went, Dan went also. But there is even more evidence that Dan settled in Scandinavia.

The island of Cyprus was known as Yadnana, meaning “Isle of the Dananu.” “Dananu” was the Tribe of Dan. An area corresponding in the descriptions to Scandinavia had also been called “Keftiu,” or "Kaptara,” both words meaning Cyprus. Since the Danites were connected with Cyprus of the Mediterranean, they might (on this point alone) also have been on “Cyprus of the Atlantic Ocean," meaning in Scandinavia. Dan disappeared at anearly date. Scandinavian culture at that time
revealed the probable presence of a group hailing from the same Middle Eastern areas which the Danites had frequented shortly before. From this, we can surmise that these Danites (at least some of them) from the Mediterranean had migrated to
Scandinavia. Irish legends identify the Children of Dana with the Israelite Tribe of Dan. The Irish accounts exactly fit what archaeological research has revealed.

Another nail to hammer this point home is that the Assyrians, or their auxiliaries, conquered Scandinavia in about 700 B.C.E., and the Danites might have reached Scandinavia after or during that date. Scandinavian Bronze Age Civilization ended in about
500 B.C.E., about which time Dana from Scandinavia came to Ireland.

The conclusions of Yair Davidy are that the Tribe of Dan had broken up into several entities, one of which occupied the area of southeast Turkey and the island of Cyprus. Dan, like the other north Israelite tribes, went into exile and a portion of Dan might have been exiled before the other Israelites. Part of Dan is to be identified with the Tribe of Dana in Irish tradition, who, it was said, from the Israelite Middle Eastern region went to Greece, then to Scandinavia, and from there to Ireland and Britain.

But there is more. Yair Davidy, in his book, The Tribes, says that a portion of the Tribe of Judah had been exiled with the other Ten Tribes. These particular Judaites (Jews) among the northern Ten Tribes are recognizable in the Jutes, who were
associated with Dan of Denmark. We do know that Denmark was once called Juteland. Where did this name come from? At one time, both the Danites and the Yadi of Judah ruled over the same subject people called Mooshki, later known as Muski, and who are identified with the Phrygians (in Anatolia, or Turkey, today). There were periods when both the Dananu and Yadi were ruled by the same monarch. At some stage, though, they separated and warred against each other, enlisting foreigners to help them.

The ultimate result was that both kingdoms were destroyed and the Yadi and the Dananu exiled. Centuries later the Jutes (from “Yadi”?) settled in Denmark, and a Danish tradition traced the Jutes to Judah and the Danes to Dan. The Danes of Denmark
traced their origin to Dan the Great, and in an early historical work, the Danes are attributed descent from Dan of Israel, and the Jutes (who accompanied the Danes) ascribed Judah as their forebear. Apparently so many Jutes were in Denmark (the
Cymbric Peninsula) that it became known as Juteland. In Northern European dialects and in Latin, variations on the names “Jute” (of Denmark) and “Judaean” (Jew from Judah) are sometimes interchangeable.

In central northern Britain, Ptolemy records the city of Danum, and it was in this region that, after several centuries, Viking invaders from Denmark were destined to settle. In addition, the Tribe of Dana were amongst the early settlers of Ireland and came from the Israelite area of Lebanon, whence they were said to have gone to Greece and from there to the far north and from there to Ireland. The Irish claims regarding the Tribe of Dana are confirmed by archaeology. In Welsh versions, the Tribe of Dana are referred to as Sons of Don.

Interestingly, the Tribe of Dan was represented by a snake (Genesis 49:17) and by a lion (Deuteronomy 33:22). Other symbols were a pair of scales (Genesis 49:16), an eagle, and a dragon. Many members of Dan settled in Denmark, in Ireland, in Wales, England, and the U.S.A., where 40-50 million people have Irish ancestry. The original Coat of Arms of Denmark depicts a lion. (
“Dan is a lion’s whelp, he shall leap from Bashan” (Deuteronomy 33:22)). Denmark (literally “Mark of Dan”) was called Juteland at one time. Judah (the Jutes) was very prominent, along with the presence of other tribes, in Denmark. An
interesting sidelight is that the Germans conquered Denmark in WWII and ordered all the Jews to wear the star of David as an identifying sign. The king of Denmark then proceeded to put one on himself and ordered all his subjects to do the same. The symbol of a snake was once worshipped in Ireland; Denmark (as mentioned) and England are represented by a lion; Wales has a dragon on its flag, and the U.S.A. has an eagle.

The Coat of Arms of Iceland, historically associated with Norway and Denmark, includes a dragon, a vulture (which in Hebrew is given the same name as an eagle, “nesher”), a bull (which is a symbol of Joseph), and a giant (which might
represent Dan and Samson, the national hero of Dan) (Davidy, p. 210).

Another interesting sidelight, and perhaps a “proof” in and of itself, is the camping order of the Israelite tribes in the Wilderness. In The Tribes, Yair Davidy has an entire chapter on “The Order of Encampment in the Wilderness and Its Historical Significance.” He makes the point that some significance can be made from the tribal associations, which associations were commanded of them by the Eternal, even from the beginning of their forty-year sojourn in the Exodus from Egypt. The point has been made earlier that some Danites probably left before the main part of Israel was enslaved, who themselves were later released by their Egyptian overlords. The greater part, though, left with the others during the historical Exodus. Numbers 2 tells us that the tribes were encamped in a specified order around the Tabernacle while in the Wilderness. Similarly, they were to proceed in a specified marching order, with Judah going first and Dan bringing up the rear (Numbers 10)

The camping order divided the twelve tribes into four groups of three, with the camping alignment having some parallelism to the familial order of Jacob and his wives. He asserts, and I agree that he makes a good point of it, that this might be a clue to their whereabouts in modem times, since their “required” association would have established an affinity for one another not broken by future events. The last grouping of three is that dominated by Dan, his other neighbours being Asher (Scots of today) and Naphtali (the Norwegians). Among all the other peoples and nations that Dan might have become (or greatly influenced), are the Danes. Naphtali became the Nephtali who migrated to Norway. Both Denmark and Norway produced the Vikings, who invaded and settled in northern England in an area previously belonging to the Angles and Varin (Vandals) and before them, to the Brigantes. (My note: both Dan and Naphtali were sons of Bilhah (Genesis 30:4-8)). He continues his line of thought by saying the Anglo-Brigantian inhabitants of northern Britain were most likely from the Tribe of Asher (called “Aseir”).

These Aseir were considered ancestral gods by the Scandinavians, including those of Norway and Denmark. This same camping (living) alliance that had been theirs in the Wilderness, then, was retained in Scandinavia and in northern England.

Briefly, the Naphtalites became divided by time, but the greater bulk went westward and became the Vikings of Scandinavia, especially of Norway. What about Sweden?

“It was from Odin’s army, known as the ‘Svear,’ that Sweden takes its name. In their own language, the Swedes call their country ‘Sverige,’ — the ‘land of the Svear.’ The date of Odin is given variously as between C.E. 200 and 300. In the Herald’s College, London, there is a very ancient manuscript deducing the Saxon kings from Adam and from David. Odin is listed in the genealogy (as is also his wife, Frea) tracing the Royal House of Britain back to David.” Let it be understood that I have not gone into the detail that Yair Davidy has gone into, to wit, the names of the sons of Dan in the Bible being associated with peoples that invariably were, and still are, associated with Dan in the countries of Scandinavia and Ireland mentioned above. This includes names of tribes, place names, symbols, etc.

Before closing this section, one other point should be made. Whenever the Bible mentions “the Isles,” many of us have, in the past, believed them to be the British Isles. Psalms 72:10, for example, says, “The Kings of Tarshish and of the Isles...” Talmudic commentators explain that the “Isles” are those in the “Oceanic Sea,” meaning the Atlantic Ocean. The Talmud infers, too, that “Tarshish” actually means the Atlantic Ocean. We know that historically Tarshish was located on the southwest coast of Spain, and outposts of it were located in Britain and Gaul.

‘Ships of Tarshish’ means primarily those plying the Atlantic Ocean and therefore the ‘Isles’ mentioned in association with Tarshish and Israelites are presumably those of Britain, America, and the coastline of Northwest Europe (Bold type mine) since the term ‘Isle’ in Hebrew sometimes may be extended to include places by thecoast. Even so, PRIMARILY — ‘EY’ in Hebrew means Land surrounded by water, i.e. an ‘isle’ or island.

“The term ‘Yarech’ in Hebrew means coastline whereas ‘ey’ nearly always means island. And Jeremiah uses the word ‘yerech’ coastline when speaking of the ‘North Country’ (Jeremiah 31:8-10). The expression ‘North Country’ could
apply to the whole of the Northwest European Coastline (including the British Isles) as well as to North America.”

To the early oceanic travelers, the North Americancontinent would undoubtedly appear on maps as an “island.” That Scandinavia, whether the coastline only or the entire peninsula, would also be included in those prophecies concerning “the Isles,” seems conclusive. Later, the reader will see that North America’s being included definitely would seem to be a reasonable assumption.


(1) Ibid., p. 162.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid., p. 163.
(4) Ibid., p. 187.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid., p. 238.
(7) Ibid., p. 239.
(8) Fell, Barry, America B.C., Wallaby Book, New York, 1976, p. 109.
(9) Ibid., p. 110.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Ibid., p. 112.
(13) Most of the above is gleaned from Fell’s Saga America, a chapter entitled, “The Carthaginians in America,” and from
Davidy’s Lost Israelite Identity.
(14) Much of this regarding the blessings of Esau and Jacob is from a study paper by Noel Rude, entitled “The Ancient Near
Rude is a linguist/scholar presently employed by the University of Mexico in Mexico City.
(15) Evidence keeps cropping up that Dan and Phoenicia (Esau) were separate entities. Although both went to every corner of
the world together, each could have maintained his uniqueness. This paper, however, is written from the viewpoint that the inter-mixing was intact, based on the greater amount of evidence that the writer has seen.
(16) Davidy, Lost, Chapter 10: “Dan in Cyprus,” pp. 205-212. See especially subtitles “Mycenea,” p. 206 and “The Bronze Age Civilisation of Scandinavia,” pp. 209-2 10.
(17) Davidy, The Tribes, p. 215
(18) Davidy, Lost, Chapter 15, “Hebrew Namesakes Amongst the Western Celts,” under subtitle, “Denas (of Wales) = Dan,” p. 301.
(19) Davidy, The Tribes, p. 209.
(20) Ibid., pp. 335-339.
(21) Ibid., p. 328
(22) Ibid., pp. 422-423


Back To Archive Contents