Against the use of Exodus as dating evidence we must balance two other biblical references.
Since the 1930s, the majority view has dated the Israelite Exodus and Conquest to the 13th century BC, at the end of the Late Bronze Age.
A re-examination of the evidence suggests that the archaeology of this period is incompatible with the biblical narrative, and the campaign of conquest related in the Book of Joshua. Bimson's own research concludes that a date for these events in the late 15th century would bring the narrative into accord with the archaeology of the Middle Bronze Age and the traditional biblical date for the Exodus of c.1450 BC.
On the positive side, however, archaeology can significantly affect the balance of probabilities.
I hope to show that it suggests the basic historicity of those biblical traditions which deal with the origins of Israel in Canaan.
This emphasizes the small proportion which can be uncovered in a few seasons.
Furthermore, only a limited amount of buried material survives the centuries for the archaeologist to discover it.
In the case of the cities of the Ancient Near East, limited time and resources mean that the archaeologist can only excavate a relatively small proportion of a tell (the Arabic term for a ruin-mound, in Hebrew spelt tel).
For example, Yigael Yadin estimated that to excavate every level of the tell of Hazor (in northern Galilee) in its entirety would take eight hundred years!
period that they cannot possibly contain historical reminiscences from almost a thousand years before [Lemche:377-78, 384].