le blé monte_’, according to Radau ‘grain grow(n)’, according to de Genouillac, whom Kugler follows, ‘_mois où on lève le blé pour les moutons_’: i. e. after the corn has been trodden out on the threshing-floor by the oxen, the stalks are taken up for the cattle. The list has therefore thirteen months. Further, two points are to be noted. In the first place only eight months (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 13), or perhaps nine--if _itu ur_ is to be regarded as an abbreviation of _itu ga-udu-ur-(ra-)ka_--are taken over from the preceding period. The multiplicity and instability of the names of months were therefore at an earlier period still greater than the known names indicate. In the second place the word _ezen_, ‘feast’, is a secondary addition to the names of the 2nd, 3rd, 13th, and probably the 4th months, that is to say, the ecclesiastical point of view has penetrated into the nomenclature of the months to such an extent that even months with names borrowed from agricultural occupations are explained anew by festivals. The third period is the time of Dungi and his successors. The list of months differs only in that 7, _itu ur_, was re-named as _itu ezen ^{dingir} Dungi_, and the tenth month of the above list is missing, so that we have 10, _itu amar-a-asi_; 11, _itu še-kin-kud_; 12, _itu se-illa_; in the intercalation 11 is doubled, _itu dir še-kin-kud_. The seventh month takes its name from a festival celebrated in honour of the deified king Dungi; it is therefore the oldest example of a naming of a month from deified rulers which originates in the festivals bound up with the cult; such names are familiar from the Graeco-Roman period and examples still survive in the words ‘July’ and ‘August’. Still another version of this list exists in the so-called syllabar of months, in which six series of names of months are enumerated. This list is not completely preserved. The most considerable deviation is that only two months instead of three intervene between the months _šu-kul-na_ and _ezen ^d Bau_: the order of succession is therefore broken. Landsberger conjectures that we have to do either with a later form of the calendar from Lagash, at the time of the kings of Larsa and Isin--afterwards the Nippur list was used, this being employed everywhere, at least ideographically--or else with a local offshoot. In any case the list affords valuable evidence of the instability of the months.