THE EXODUS AND THE ABANDONMENT OF CITY OF RAMSES

By Clyde E. Billington, Ph.D.

Douglas Petrovich (Ph.D. University of Toronto) in a recent article titled “Toward
Pinpointing the Timing of the Egyptian Abandonment of Avaris during the Middle of the 18th
Dynasty,” which appeared in the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections (Vol. 5:2, 2013),
argues that the city of Avaris/ Ramses and its great naval port of Peru-nefer on the Nile were
abandoned for several decades during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep II (ruled
1453-1415 BC).

The ancient city of Avaris/ Ramses is located at Tell el-Dab’a, an archaeological site in
Egypt which has been extensively excavated by the Austrian Egyptologist Manfred Bietak.
Bietak has mentioned the abandonment of Avaris/ Ramses in several of his publications, but
has vacillated as to its date, sometimes dating it to the reign of Thutmosis IV (son of
Amenhotep II) and sometimes to Amenhotep III, the grandson of Amenhotep II. Amenhotep III
was the father of the famous heretic Pharaoh Akhenaten, and grandfather or great grandfather
of King Tut. Petrovich provides strong textual and archaeological support—much provided by
Bietak-- for dating the abandonment of Avaris/ Ramses to the reign of Amenhotep II.

It was from the city of Avaris/ Ramses and its naval port of Peru-nefer that the great
Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis III launched his many victorious campaigns of conquest which
carried him as far north as the great bend of the Euphrates River. He even crossed the
Euphrates and raided deep into the territory of the powerful Kingdom of Mitanni. Fearing him
and not wanting to fight against his army, the Mitanni army retreated backward into their own
lands. Hence Thutmosis III was not able to destroy the Kingdom of Mitanni and eventually had
to return home with his loot from raiding Mitanni cities.

It was with the support of warships from his naval port of Peru-nefer that Thutmosis III
was able to carry out his many—at least 17-- successful military campaigns into Canaan and
Syria. Thutmosis III also built military support installations for his army at Avaris/ Ramses which
included a series of huge silos—ca. 18 feet in diameter—that were used for the storage of
grain. In other words there is archaeological proof that the city of Avaris/ Ramses was a
military “store city” as the Old Testament indicates. Thutmosis III also built a massive fortified
palace at Avaris/ Ramses using mud brick.

After the death of his father Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II assumed the throne alone in
1450 BC and conducted a successful military campaign to the north to put down a Mitanni-
supported rebellion in Syria and Canaan. This campaign was in year three of his reign, and he
began his campaign at-- and returned to-- his father’s home base at Avaris/ Ramses and its
naval port of Peru-nefer. His father Thutmosis III was the greatest conquering pharaoh in the
history of Egypt, and at first it appeared that Amenhotep II would follow in his father’s
footsteps. However, he only conducted one more military campaign which was in year 9 of his
38+ year reign. In addition, sometime during his reign—between years 3 and 9--the great city
of Avaris/ Ramses was strangely abandoned for a several decades, and then later repopulated
with foreign slaves.

As was noted above, in year 9 (1444 BC) of his reign Amenhotep II conducted a very
strange military campaign into Canaan. This raid was unique for a number of reasons. First, it
began in November, and Egyptian campaigns into Canaan and Syria almost always began in
April when there were grain crops in their enemies’ fields that could be confiscated and used to
feed the army and its horses. Second, this campaign only went into Canaan as far as the
Galilee. Third, his attack to the north does not seem to have been caused by either a Canaanite
revolt or by any sort of foreign invasion threatening Egypt. It appears that the only reason for
the year 9 campaign was to obtain slaves.

Fourth, Amenhotep II brought back a huge number of foreign slaves to Egypt. On his
Memphite Stele, Amenhotep II gives the total number of slaves that he brought to Egypt as
89,600, but there is a math error on the Memphite Stele because the numbers given on it for
individual ethnic groups of slaves actually adds up to 101,128. Petrovich believes that 101,128
is the correct number of slaves. Interestingly, some of these slaves were Horites and some are
called “Apiru” (probably Edomites) who were included in the slaves which Amenhotep II
brought back to Egypt.

By way of comparison, Amenhotep’s father Thutmosis III records a total of less than
9,000 slaves that he brought back to Egypt from 17 military campaigns. The uniquely high
number of slaves which Amenhotep II brought back to Egypt included women and children. His
father Thutmosis III appears to have brought back mainly healthy males, some of whom appear
to have been foreign soldiers who were forced to serve in the Egyptian army. Thus, it appears
that the main reason for Amenhotep II’s campaign in year 9 was to obtain slaves. And fifth, it
appears that he settled these captured slaves in Goshen where the Israelites once lived.

While Petrovich does not mention the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt in his article, it
appears very likely that the 100,000+ slaves, which Amenhotep II brought to Egypt and settled
at Goshen were replacement slaves for the Israelites who had left during the Exodus. As
Petrovich points out, the people who later settled as Avaris/ Ramses after its abandonment
were clearly different from the people who had lived there earlier. It should also be noted that
in his “slave raid” into Canaan, Amenhotep seized over 1000 chariots and many weapons from
the Canaanites. It appears that he was rebuilding his army after the Red Sea incident.
 Egyptologist Charles Aling has for decades argued that the Exodus from Egypt had to
have taken place during the reign of Amenhotep II in ca. 1446 BC. Most other scholars have
argued that the Exodus took place in ca. 1265 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Ramses II. These
100,000+ replacement slaves and these 1000 chariots appear to provide strong support for
dating the Exodus to the reign of Amenhotep II.

There are also several other disruptions in Egyptian society which took place during the
reign of Amenhotep II and which also appear to be related to the abandonment of Avaris/
Ramses and the Exodus. Petrovich provides solid inscriptional evidence that indicates that
Amenhotep II strangely had the statues of the god Amun- Re smashed. To say the very least,
this is highly unusual behavior since his father Thutmosis III attributed his many military
victories to his divine “father,” the god Amun-Re.

Amenhotep II himself also attributed the success of his military campaign in year 3 (ca.
1450 BC) to the god Amun-Re, and yet it is clear that later in his reign, Amenhotep II turned
against the Egyptian god Amun- Re, the king of the gods. Amenhotep II, who was himself
named after the god Amun-Re, apparently had Amun-Re’s statues smashed.

The Hellenistic Egyptian historian Manetho, who is quoted by Josephus in his Against
Apion, also mentions the smashing of statues during the reign of a pharaoh named
“Amenhotep,” but he does not attribute this smashing of statues to this pharaoh but to
rebellious, leprous, Egyptian slaves. Thus, Manetho provides some support for Petrovich’s
theory that Amenhotep II smashed the statues of Amun-Re. While Petrovich does not so state
in this article, the defeat of the Egyptian army and the humiliation of the god Amun- Re in the
Exodus may explain this strange behavior of Amenhotep II.

A massive change in Egyptian foreign policy also took place during the reign of
Amenhotep II. Earlier in the 18th Dynasty, Egyptian foreign policy was basically imperialistic
and conducted with actual or threatened military intervention. Amenhotep II himself appears
to have at first adopted this tough Egyptian foreign policy approach as can be seen in his
campaign in year 3 of his reign. However, Amenhotep II made a drastic change in Egypt’s
foreign diplomacy sometime after year 3 of his reign.

It appears that Amenhotep II was the first pharaoh to make peace overtures to the
Kingdom of Mitanni, which formerly was the mortal enemy of the Egyptians. Both Amenhotep
II and his father Thutmosis III fought against and defeated the Kingdom of Mitanni. Even
though there is no historical or archaeological evidence indicating that the Kingdom of Mitanni
ever defeated the Egyptian army under Amenhotep II, he appears to have initiated peace talks
with them. He even asked for a daughter of the King of Mitanni to be sent to him as a wife,
which was a traditional practice in the ancient world for sealing friendly diplomatic relations.
Later in ca. 1370 BC his grandson Amenhotep III will marry a Mitanni princess.

The question thus arises is: Why did Amenhotep II feel that he had to make a peace
treaty with the Mitanni on terms that appear to have been very favorable to the Mitanni? The
Exodus story may again provide an explanation. If, as the Old Testament indicates, the Egyptian
army was destroyed at the time of the Exodus, then Amenhotep II may have sought a
diplomatic deal with the Mitanni until he could rebuild the Egyptian army. While biblical critics
will reject this explanation, the fact remains that a drastic change in Egyptian foreign policy and
also in the non-use of the army in Egyptian foreign policy took place during the reign of Pharaoh
Amenhotep II, and there is no other good reason for this drastic change.

Petrovich also argues that it was during the reign of Amenhotep II that the statues,
cartouches, and pictures of the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut were defaced. Most Egyptologists
have in the past attributed the defacing of Hatshepsut’s artwork to Thutmosis III who was her
nephew, stepson, and son-in-law. Thutmosis III was once thought to have been responsible for
this destruction because he as a male chauvinist supposedly resented the rule of the female
Pharaoh Hatshepsut. It was assumed that when he became Pharaoh, Thutmosis III destroyed
her artwork for revenge. Petrovich argues convincingly that it was Amenhotep II and not
Thutmosis III who destroyed the cartouches and artwork of Hatshepsut. Thus, the question
arises: Why did Amenhotep II deface the artwork of Hatshepsut 40 years after her death?

In his article, Petrovich does not attempt to answer the question of why Amenhotep II
destroyed the pictures, statues, and cartouche names of Hatshepsut. But, if Hatshepsut was
the Egyptian princess who rescued Moses from the Nile and adopted him, Amenhotep II may
have sought to punish her and indirectly Moses for the events of the Exodus. This, however, is
pure speculation since there is no positive proof that Hatshepsut was Moses’ adopted mother,
but there is no other good explanation for Amenhotep II’s behavior towards his step-
grandmother and great aunt Hatshepsut. Incidentally, Hatshepsut’s mummy—contrary to
claims made a few years ago--has never been found, even though the location of her tomb in
the Valley of the Kings is well-known.

There is one final, important feature in Petrovich’s article which also needs to be
mentioned but which has no direct connection with the Old Testament. It is very clear from the
archaeological evidence excavated by Bietak--and others--that the destruction of the Minoan
Civilization on Crete by the explosion of the Thera/ Santorini volcano did not take place in 1600-
1650 BC as some scientists have argued based on their ice core samples.

Most ancient historians believe that it was the volcanic explosion of the island of Thera--
located about 65 miles north of Crete--that ended the great Minoan Civilization. There is
irrefutable archaeological evidence that “Keftiu” ships from Crete docked at Peru-nefer and
that the Minoans were still trading with the Egyptians during the reign of Thutmosis III and
early in the reign of Amenhotep II in the mid-1400’s BC. Incidentally, Bietak has provided
archaeological evidence that seems to suggest that Minoan traders and artisans living in Egypt
sacrificed human teen-agers, a practice that is known to have taken place on the island of
Crete.

In summation, while Petrovich does not mention the Exodus in his article, it clear that the
abandonment of the city of Avaris/ Ramses and the settlement of 100,000 slaves in the same
basic area where the Old Testament indicates that the Israelites once lived must have had some
sort of a connection to the Exodus. Actually, it appears that the abandonment of Avaris/
Ramses which Bietak has discovered at Tell el-Dab’a was the Exodus of the Israelites from
Egypt. There is no other good explanation for its abandonment and then its later repopulation
with foreign slaves that took place several decades later during the reign of Pharaoh
Amenhotep II. [ARTIFAX, Summer 2013]