Narmer, and Aha. That is to say, the contemporary evidence makes him the
fifth king from Aha, the first original of "Menés."

Now after the piety of Seti I had led him to erect a great temple at
Abydos in memory of the ancient kings, whose sepulchres had probably
been brought to light shortly before, and to compile and set up in the
temple a list of his predecessors, a certain pious snobbery or snobbish
piety impelled a worthy named Tunure, who lived at Memphis, to put up in
his own tomb at Sakkâra a tablet of kings like the royal one at Abydos.
If Osiris-Khentamenti at Abydos had his tablet of kings, so should
Osiris-Seker at Sakkâra. But Tunure does not begin his list with Mena;
his initial king is Merpeba. For him Merpeba was the first monarch to be
commemorated at Sakkâra. Does not this look very much as if the strictly
historical Merpeba, not the rather legendary and confused Mena, was
regarded as the first Memphite king? It may well be that it was in
the reign of Merpeba, not in that of Aha or Narmer, that Memphis was
founded.

The XIXth Dynasty lists of course say nothing about Mena or Merpeba
having founded Memphis; they only give the names of the kings, nothing
more. The earliest authority for the ascription of Memphis to "Menés",
is Herodotus, who was followed in this ascription, as in many other
matters, by Manetho; but it must be remembered that Manetho was writing
for the edification of a Greek king (Ptolemy Philadelphus) and his Greek
court at Alexandria, and had therefore to evince a respect for the great
Greek classic which he may not always have really felt. Herodotus is
not, of course, accused of any wilful misstatement in this or in any
other matter in which his accuracy is suspected. He merely wrote
down what he was told by the Egyptians themselves, and Merpeba was
sufficiently near in time to Aha to be easily confounded with him by