The Danuna

by Tara Sulima & Megaera Lorenz

The Danuna (or Denyen), a significant contingent of the “Sea Peoples,” are represented in Egyptian, Hittite and classical sources. The evidence for their origins, ethnic identity and eventual fate is complex and controversial.

The Danuna first appear in one of the Amarna letters (dating to the mid 14^th century BCE). The Danuna are mentioned in a letter from the king of Tyre, Abi-Milku, to the Pharaoh, possibly Akhenaten. The letter (EA 151) consists in part of a report on conditions in Canaan, composed at the request of the Pharaoh. Abi-Milku reports that: “The king of Danuna has died; his brother became king after his death, and his land is at peace” (Moran 1992: 238-239).

Egyptian sources do not refer to the Danuna again until the early 12^th century BCE during the reign of Ramesses III. The Danuna (Denyen) are listed among the northern conspirators who moved against Egypt in the war that took place in Ramesses III’s 8^th regnal year. This attack is recorded on the walls of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. The other major players in the event include the Philistines, Tjekker, Shekelesh, and Weshesh. This “confederacy” of “Sea Peoples” set out from their lands in the north (variously translated as “islands” or “coastal lands”) and moved down through Anatolia and the Levant, leaving destruction in their wake. They eventually arrived at the northern border of Egypt, where the Egyptians fought them off in joint naval and land battles (Pritchard 1969: 262-263). At Medinet Habu, the Danuna are also depicted visually in relief scenes of the battles and their aftermath. Interestingly, the Danuna are depicted as looking nearly identical to other “Sea Peoples” including the Philistines (Barnett 1953: 142).

The Danuna appear again in the Papyrus Harris. The Papyrus Harris is an account of the significant events of Ramesses III’s reign, composed immediately after the king’s death. The text referring to Danuna describes the fate of the peoples defeated by Ramesses:

I slew the Denyen [Danuna] in their islands, while the Tjeker and the Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Weshesh of the sea were nonexistent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore (Pritchard 1969: 260-261).

The latest known Egyptian text to mention the Danuna is the Onomasticon of Amenemope, dating to approximately 1100 BCE (Redford 1992: 292). The text consists of a list of places and peoples, apparently in at least rough geographical order from north to south. The “Dene” are listed between the Keshkesh and Hatti (the land of the Hittites), both of which are situated in Anatolia (Gardiner 1968: 124-125).

The Danuna are also mentioned in an important Hittite text, dated tentatively to the 8^th century BCE. The text, discovered at the site of Karatepe in Cilicia in the late 1940s, is a bi-lingual document written in Phoenician and Hittite. It was erected by Azitawadda of Adana to commemorate the building of a citadel. Azitawadda describes himself as the king and benefactor of the “Danunites.” He speaks at length of the peace and prosperity that he has brought to his kingdom, as well as his military prowess (Pritchard 1969: 653-654). The text also contains a number of references to the “House of Mupsh.” This “Mupsh” can be identified with Mopsus, a legendary figure of classical Greek texts. According to legend, Mopsus originated in Lydia and moved eastward, creating several settlements along the way, some of them in Cilicia (Barnett 1953: 142).

In 1997, another important text with relevance to the Danuna was discovered at the site of Çineköy, about 30 km to the south of Adana. The text is inscribed on a large basalt statue, and, like the Karatepe inscription, is bilingual (Luwian and Phoenician). The monument dates to the 8^th century BCE. The text was recently translated and published by R. Tekoglu and A. Lemaire (2000). This monument, apparently a commemorative inscription, was dedicated to one Urikki (or Awarikas), the king of Qué. The text establishes Urikki as a descendent of Mopsus (or Muksas, in the Luwian/Hittite version of the text): “Myself, I am U[rikki, son of . . . ] of the lineage of Mopsos, [king of the Danuna?]” (Tekoglu and Lemaire 2000: 994). Later in the passage, the king boasts of the alliance between the Danuna and the Assyrians under his reign: “And the Danuna and the Assyrians were a single house” (Tekoglu and Lemaire 2000: 994).

Aside from the interesting Mopsus connection, there is a rich classical tradition surrounding the Danuna in the form of the legend of Io and the wanderings of her descendents. Danaos and the Phoenician Kadmos were said to have fled Egypt together, while Danaos eventually settled in Argos (Redford 1992: 413). The Greeks of Argos, called the Danaoi, were reputed to be named after Danaos (Leahy 2001: 257).

The origins of the Danuna are unclear—the ancient texts remain fairly obscure on this point. Historians and archaeologists have attempted to place their origins in Greece, Canaan, and Cilicia. The idea that the Danuna originated in Greece must be approached with caution. As A. Leahy (2001: 257) points out, the similarity in names may be coincidental. Furthermore, even if there is a connection, the Greek legends themselves claim that Danaus originated in the east and eventually settled in Greece (Barnett 1975: 365). Danaus was originally connected with the Phoenicians, and was even credited as the original source of the phonetic alphabet in Greece (Barnett 1953: 142).

Another theory proposed by A. Jones (1975: 23ff) suggests that the Danuna were Semitic in origin. They supposedly departed from the Levant with a number of other groups, only to return to the Levant during the migrations that took place at the end of the Bronze Age. However, this statement is strangely unsupported, and seems to rest mainly on classical and biblical legend.

Y. Yadin (1968: 9-23) attempts to connect the Danuna with the Biblical tribe of Dan. He bases this theory on several factors: 1) the close cultural and geographic association of the biblical Dan with the Philistines and the Tjekker (likewise, in Egyptian depictions, these groups are portrayed in nearly identical costume), 2) biblical descriptions of the Dan as great seamen, and 3) the lack of an early link between the tribe of Dan and the Covenant of the Tribes of Israel. He also attempts to correlate the wandering of the tribe of Dan with the destruction of Tel Qasile (a coastal site located between sites thought to have been inhabited by the Tjekker and the Philistines) ca. 1100 BCE (20-21). Yadin’s theory is intriguing, but highly speculative. There is also no solid evidence, archaeological or historical, that the site of Tel Qasile was inhabited by the Danuna at any time. According to the Onomasticon of Amenemope, the Danuna were residing in Anatolia at the time of this destruction.

The Onomasticon of Amenemope and the Karatepe inscription make it clear that the Danuna were living in Anatolia (specifically eastern Cilicia) at least as early as the 10^th century BCE. Barnett (1975: 365) suggests that the Danuna of the Amarna letter may have resided in the Amanus mountains, near modern Adana. This would place them on the border between Anatolia and Syria, and not far from Ugarit, one of the places that fell to the Sea Peoples during the turmoil at the end of the Bronze Age. According to Wainwright (1963: 149-150), there is evidence of the Danuna living in eastern Cilicia dating to as early as the 16^th century BCE, in the form of a reference to their capital city of Adaniya in a text by Telepinus.

From all of the evidence considered here, we can conclude that the Danuna (like the other Sea Peoples) were a mobile group, centered mainly in Cilicia and Anatolia, and eventually spreading into Greece and the Levant during the migrations of the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age. The case of the Danuna is one of the most complex to emerge from this time period, and a thorough treatment of this case would be very useful.

Primary Sources

Onomasticon of Amenope, 20^th Dynasty, in:

Gardiner, A. H.

1968 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. London: Oxford University Press.

Amarna Letters, Akhenaten, 18^th Dynasty, in:

Moran, W. L.

1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The Çineköy Inscription, Urikki, ca. 8^th c. BCE, in:

Tekoglu, R. and Lemaire, A.

2000 La Bilingue Royale Louvito-Phénicien de Çineköy. Comptes Rendus de L’Academie des Inscriptions 2000: 961-1006.

Medinet Habu Inscriptions, Ramesses III, 20^th Dynasty and Karatepe Inscription, Azitawadda, ca. 8^th c. BCE, in:

Pritchard, J. B.

1969 The Ancient Near East, Supplementary Text and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Secondary Sources

Astour, M. C.

1965 Hellenosemitica. Leiden: E. J. Brill The author discusses the origins of the Danuna.

Barnett, R. D.

1975 The Sea Peoples. Pp. 362-366 in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. II, part 2, ed. J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock. Cambridge University Press. Includes a brief discussion of the Danuna, focusing on the connection with Mopsus.

1953 Mopsos. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 73: 140-145. The author discusses the significance of references to Mopsos in connection to the Danuna in the Karatepe inscription.

Jones, A.

1975 Bronze Age Civilization: The Philistines and the Danites. Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press. Discussion of the Danuna and Philistines and their connection with classical and biblical sources.

Leahy, A.

2001 Sea Peoples. Pp. 257-260 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald Redford. London: Oxford University Press. A brief summary of the Sea Peoples’ attacks on Egypt with discussion of the origins of the various peoples.

Redford, D. B.

1992 Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Discussion of the Sea Peoples, their origins, and their connections with peoples mentioned in Hittite and classical texts.

Wainwright, G. A.

1963 A Teucrian at Salamis in Cyprus. Journal of Hellenic Studies 83: 146-151.

Yadin, Y.

1968 “And Dan, Why Did He Remain in Ships?” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1: 9-23. The author postulates a connection between the Danuna and the Biblical tribe of Dan.

University Libraries | Arts and Humanities Library | Penn State
Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies | Jewish Studies Program

Last updated 10/2004 by Catherine Greenleaf, undergraduate in Anthropology and
Daniel Mack, humanities librarian for classics and ancient Mediterranean studies
 A production of the Digital Resources Center
©2003 The Pennsylvania State University