We "know" Moses did _not_ write the Exodus account because it is presented in the third person format. The sites enumerated in Numbers 33:1-50 were most probably sites known to the narrator who wrote the account in the 7th/6th century B. so they most likely were in existence in his day (some may have been abandoned in his days while others were occupied but they did "exist" at least physically).
We have established that the account was written not earlier than the 7th/6th century B. because some of the sites mentioned did not come into existence until that time frame. He probably did not realize that some of these sites did not exist or were abandoned at the time he "thought" the Exodus occurred (1512/1446 B. It thus follows that even if one could satisfactorily identify a chain of sites or ruin heaps or tells in existence by 7th/6th century B. extending from Egypt across the Sinai to the Negev and Canaan these sites still would _not_ constitute the "real" route of the Exodus as it would have been most probably the way to the land of the Philistines following the shore of the Mediterranean Sea because there were no Philistines to oppose Israel's Exodus and entry into Canaan in 1512/1446/1260 B. Besides the fact that the Bible (Old and New Testaments) in various books suggests for some scholars different dates for the Exodus, the single most important impediment in establishing a date for the Exodus is Archaeologists' failure to find a period when _all_ the sites mentioned in the narratives were in existence at the same moment in time.
Therefore, it is most unlikely the Israelites would have taken this way out of Egypt...
With this archaeological and topographical information about Hebua in mind, the meaning of Exodus is now clear.
This conclusion comes from a general knowledge of the results of current archaeological work throughout Jordan and specifically from my archaeological survey work south of Wadi al-Hasa, in the Southern Ghors and Northeast `Arabah, and in the Tafila-Busayra region (beginning 1999).
The findings of the above-listed surveys indicate there are few, if any, Late Bronze Age materials and a paucity of Iron I Age materials in the areas being surveyed.
But this guide was created to help you navigate your way through all those adjectives and shed the only light you’ll ever need on an otherwise confusing, strenuous experience.
Only then were most of the identified sites occupied; there is little or no evidence of their occupation during either the Iron I or early Iron II Age"My experience in the field of Near Eastern archaeology has led me to the general conclusion that the biblical stories about Transjordanian places and events best fit into the Iron II period and later.
On the other hand, the Iron II Age is well represented in all of these areas.