of tradition. It may be that Aha bore the personal name of _Men_, which
would thus be the original of Mena, but this is uncertain. In any case
both Aha and Narmer must be assigned to the Ist Dynasty, with the result
that we know of more kings belonging to the dynasty than appear in the
lists.

Nor is this improbable. Manetho's list is evidently based upon old
Egyptian lists derived from the authorities upon which the king-lists of
Abydos and Sakkâra were based. These old lists were made under the
XIXth Dynasty, when an interest in the oldest kings seems to have been
awakened, and the ruling monarchs erected temples at Abydos in their
honour. This phenomenon can only have been due to a discovery of Umm
el-Ga'ab and its treasures, the tombs of which were recognized as
the burial-places (real or secondary) of the kings before the
pyramid-builders. 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