Seti I. and his son Ramses then worshipped the kings of Umm el-Ga’ab, with their names set before them in the order, number, and spelling in which the scribes considered they ought to be inscribed.  It is highly probable that the number known at that time was not quite correct.  We know that the spelling of the names was very much garbled (to take one example only, the signs for Sen were read as one sign Qebh), so that one or two kings may have been omitted or displaced.  This may be the case with Narmer, or, as his name ought possibly to be read, Betjumer.  His monuments show by their style that he belongs to the very beginning of the Ist Dynasty.  No name in the Ist Dynasty list corresponds to his.  But one of the lists gives for the first king of the IId Dynasty (the successor of “Qebh” = Sen) a name which may also be read Betjumer, spelt syllabically this time, not ideographically.  On this account Prof.  Naville wishes to regard the Hierakonpolite monuments of Narmer as belonging to the IId Dynasty, but, as we have seen, they are among the most archaic known, and certainly must belong to the beginning of the Ist Dynasty.  It is therefore probable that Khasekhemui Besh and Narmer (Betjumer?) were confused by this list-maker, and the name Betjumer was given to the first king of the IId Dynasty, who was probably in reality Khasekhemui.  The resemblance of Betju to Besh may have contributed to this confusion.

So Narmer (or Betjumer) found his way out of his proper place at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty.  Whether Aha was also called “Men” or not, it seems evident that he and Narmer were jointly the originals of the legendary Mena.  Narmer, who possibly also bore the name of Sma, “the Uniter,” conquered the North.  Aha, “the Fighter,” also ruled both South and North at the same period.  Khasekhemui, too, conquered the North, but the style of his monuments shows such an advance upon that of the days of Aha and Narmer that it seems best to make him the successor of Sen (or “Qebh “), and, explaining the transference of the name Betjumer to the beginning of the IId Dynasty as due to a confusion with Khasekhemui’s personal name Besh, to make Khasekhemui the founder of the IId Dynasty.  The beginning of a new dynasty may well have been marked by a reassertion of the new royal power over Lower Egypt, which may have lapsed somewhat under the rule of the later kings of the Ist Dynasty.

Semti is certainly the “Hesepti” of the lists, and Tja Ati is probably “Ateth.”  “Ata” is thus unidentified.  Prof.  Petrie makes him = Merneit, but, as has already been said, there is no proof that the tomb of Merneit is that of a king.  “Teta” may be Tjer or Khent, but of this there is no proof.  It is most probable that the names “Teta,” “Ateth,” and “Ata” are all founded on Ati, the personal name of Tja.  The king Tjer is then not represented in the lists, and “Mena” is a compound of the two oldest Abydos kings, Narmer (Betjumer) Sma (?) and Aha Men (?).