The question “Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?” has long been one of the most controversial questions in ancient history, not only because of its religious dimension, but because the search for an answer places us directly within a highly complex zone where sacred religious texts, historical reality, archaeology, and collective memory intersect.
Contrary to the commonly circulated attempts to identify a specific pharaoh by name, a more appropriate scholarly approach does not search for a name as much as it searches for a historical context within which the story may have taken shape. The true starting point in examining the historical context of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, therefore, lies in determining when the Israelites (otherwise known as the ancient Hebrews) actually entered Egypt.
Reconsidering the Question of Israelite Presence in Egypt
There is nothing in the Egyptian archaeological record that explicitly indicates the presence of any group called “the Israelites” inside Egypt during any phase of the New Egyptian Kingdom. No inscriptions describe deportation, nor are there records of forced labor projects associated with a group bearing this name. Nevertheless, the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean the absence of the event itself. Rather, it may indicate that this group was limited in number and lacked political significance at the time.
Egyptian texts clearly refer to the entry of groups known as “Asiatics” (Aamu) into Egypt, whether for work, residence, or as a result of unrest in the East.
This makes the idea of a Semitic group—possibly the nucleus of the Israelites—living in Egypt historically plausible, without requiring the assumption of a sudden migration or an organized invasion. The key question, however, is when exactly these groups formed within Egypt.
What Does the Merneptah Stele Tell Us?
The Merneptah Stele, dating to the reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty (c. 1208 BCE), represents the earliest known mention of the name “Israel” in any historical source. The inscription states: “Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more.”
What is striking about this inscription is that:
- “Israel” seems to be conveyed as a people, not a state.
- The text does not imply mass deportation.
It is notable that the inscription does not mention deportation or captivity, instead employing the familiar propagandistic language of Egyptian royal inscriptions, which exaggerated victories without precise documentation of events.
This allows the phrase to be understood as describing a military blow that ended the cohesive social/political existence of a local group in Canaan, rather than a complete ethnic extermination.
This opens an important possibility: that the group known as “Israel” may have suffered defeat or fragmentation in Canaan without disappearing entirely or being fully deported.
_____________________________

The Merneptah Stele, housed in Cairo, Egypt. Ovedc, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons
_____________________________
From Defeat to Migration — The Hypothesis of Movement to Egypt
In light of this, one may propose the hypothesis that:
- The remaining members of this group, which was defeated in Canaan, may have moved to Egypt, whether as captives, forced migrants, or economic migrants.
- These groups were very small in number.
- Over time, and under difficult social and economic conditions, they multiplied within Egypt.
This scenario explains why no significant trace appears in Egyptian records and why they later emerge as a distinct group with a recognizable identity, yet limited in size. Such a migration from Canaan to Egypt does not need to have been collective or officially documented. It could have been:
- Gradual,
- Limited in number,
- Later absorbed into Egyptian society as a subordinate or laboring class.
This aligns with the image later presented in religious texts.
Between History and Collective Memory
Archaeological research in the Canaanite highlands indicates that between 1100 and 1000 BCE, hundreds of new small villages appeared suddenly, lacking fortifications, palaces, or evidence of invasion. These settlements consisted of simple, uniform houses, suggesting the arrival of a new group practicing a different way of life.
Many scholars have linked these groups to the Israelites. So, even if we apply the traditional biblical Exodus narrative and accept the story that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, it would not be a stretch to suggest that they became dispersed and entered Canaan gradually as individuals or small groups who settled in the highlands. This would explain why these groups are scarcely mentioned in the archaeological record, given their small numbers and limited political or economic importance at the time.
When Can the Exodus Be Dated?
If we assume that the entry of these groups into Egypt occurred in the late Nineteenth Dynasty (around 1200 BCE), then their departure—if it occurred—would logically fall at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty (approximately 1100–1050 BCE) — based on Canaan Archaeological evidences — a period at the end of the New Kingdom characterized by:
- Collapse of central authority,
- Severe economic crises,
- Weakening of the army,
- The rise of the priesthood and its control over southern Egypt,
- The absence of effective oversight over the provinces.
All of these factors could create an environment contributive to the departure of a small group without official documentation.
Historical Comparisons to Identify the Likely Characteristics of the Period of the Pharaoh of the Exodus
Based on comparing descriptions found in religious texts to historical records:
According to religious tradition, “Moses” received revelation in his thirties or forties. If one assumes the existence of a single Egyptian ruler from Moses’ birth until the Exodus, then the expected reign of that ruler would exceed thirty years.
If we assume that the Israelites entered Egypt in the 12th century BCE, at roughly the same time the Merneptah Stele was composed, and that this entry occurred in the form of a small group which later multiplied within Egypt, then it is natural to place the Exodus in the subsequent period—namely from the late Nineteenth Dynasty through the Twenty-first Dynasty. It would also be natural for neither the entry nor the departure to be documented, due to the small size of these group and their limited impact.
Religious Narrative and Historical Conditions
According to religious tradition, famine and plagues spread as punishment for Pharaoh and his supporters prior to the Exodus. Egyptian sources likewise indicate that the late Twentieth and early Twenty-first Dynasties witnessed famine, epidemics, climatic disturbances, and reduced Nile floods.
Religious texts also describe the priests and magicians turning against Pharaoh following their confrontation with “Moses”. Historically, Egyptian texts indicate that during the late Twentieth Dynasty—particularly under Ramesses XI (1106/7–1077 (approximate) BCE)—Egypt was divided into north and south, the priesthood defied the King’s commands, controlled the south, royal authority weakened, military power declined, and social and economic unrest intensified.
As a result of the state’s weakness during the late Twentieth Dynasty, documentation declined significantly, meaning that many events may have gone unrecorded.
The Ambiguity of the End and the Drowning Narrative: A Possible Historical Reading

Drawing from the temple of Khonsu in Karnak (Room E). Closeup of pharaoh Ramesses XI while taking a sort of “shower of Life” performed by two gods. Karnak, Reign of Ramesses XI, end-20th Dynasty, end-New Kingdom. [Lepsius’ Denkmaeler, Abtheilung III (Band VII), pl. 239]. Karl Richard Lepsius (1810-84), Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons
The ambiguity surrounding the end of the reign of Ramesses XI acquires particular significance when compared with the religious narrative that suggests, by some scholar’s interpretation, the drowning of Pharaoh during the pursuit of the Israelites. Ancient Egyptian history, despite its propagandistic nature, was accustomed to documenting the deaths of kings and their funerary rites, even during periods of instability. In the case of Ramesses XI, however, we encounter an almost complete silence: no text describing his death, no confirmed tomb (although many scholars connect an unfinished tomb in the Valley of the Kings to him, with no burial), and no mummy that can be attributed to him with certainty.
From a purely historical perspective, this absence cannot be considered direct evidence of a drowning incident. At the same time, it opens the door to the possibility, especially when it is taken into account that drowning and body loss represents the worst possible scenario for the Egyptian royal funerary system, which depended on the recovery of the body, its mummification, and the performance of complex rituals intended to guarantee the king’s eternal life in the afterworld.
Accordingly, the absence of any clear funerary evidence for Ramesses XI should not be read as an isolated mystery, but rather within the broader context of an era marked by the collapse of central authority, the division of the state, and the decline of official record-keeping. In such a climate, a religious narrative describing a humiliating and catastrophic end for the king—such as death by drowning—becomes consistent with the historical void, even if this connection remains within the realm of possibility rather than certainty.
Taking into consideration that the political fragmentation associated with the reign of Ramesses XI was not present at the beginning of his rule, but developed gradually and reached its peak in its final years—could explain a time when a major undocumented event could plausibly have occurred.
Conclusions
Based on the synthesis of archaeological data and religious texts, it becomes possible to propose that:
- The Israelites did not suddenly appear in Egypt. Rather, they gradually emerged from small groups that lived in Canaan and moved to Egypt during the Nineteenth Dynasty and their identity formed over time.
- Their departure from Egypt occurred in the late Twentieth Dynasty (meaning they remained in Egypt for approximately 150 years).
- Their return to Canaan was also gradual, in the form of small groups.
This reading does not negate the religious narrative, but situates it within a historically plausible context and opens the door to a deeper and better understanding of the emergence of one of the most significant identities in the history of the ancient Near East.
The Pyramids and the Question of Chronology
Based on this hypothesis, the widespread association between the Israelites and the construction of the pyramids has no sound historical or chronological basis. The pyramids were built during the Old Kingdom, specifically under the Fourth Dynasty—more than a thousand years before the Israelites appear in the historical record.
If, as archaeological and historical evidence suggests, Israelite presence in Egypt began during the late New Kingdom, then the chronological gap between these events makes it logically impossible for them to have participated in pyramid construction. Thus, linking the Israelites to the pyramids is simply the result of a common conflation between later religious traditions and firmly established historical facts .
Final Assessment
Archaeological evidence from the Canaanite highlands places the emergence of the Israelites in Canaan between 1100 and 1000 BCE, indicating that the Exodus from Egypt would have occurred during this same period—approximately during the reign of Ramesses XI.
Ramesses XI ruled for nearly thirty years, and no confirmed tomb or mummy has been found for him. His reign was marked by economic hardship, political fragmentation, and weakening central authority. These conditions may point to the occurrence of a major event during his reign—one that significantly weakened the Egyptian state but was not documented due to the decline in record-keeping and the Egyptian tendency to omit defeats.
Ramesses XI was the last ruler of the Twentieth Dynasty. After his death, the Twenty-first Dynasty began, marking the period of decline of ancient Egyptian civilization. This may indicate the occurrence of a powerful and destabilizing event from which Egyptian civilization never fully recovered, instead continuing in a prolonged state of deterioration until its eventual disappearance.
Final Question
In light of all the above, can we answer the question that has long puzzled scholars and historians: Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?
This article does not provide a definitive answer. Instead, it leaves the conclusion to the reader’s judgment after considering the evidence presented. The question remains open—subject to debate, interpretation, and continued dialogue.
_____________________________
References
- Cline, Eric H. 2014. 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Redford, Donald B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
- Kemp, Barry J. 2006. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routledge.
- Janssen, Jac. J. 1997. Village Varia: Ten Studies on the History and Administration of Deir el-Medina. Leiden: Brill.
- Finkelstein, Israel. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
- Lehner, Mark. 1997. The Complete Pyramids. London: Thames & Hudson.
_____________________________
Cover Image, Top Left: Amenemope Dynasty 20 reign of Ramesses XI wood gesso and paint Mary Harrsch, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons