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 (?).