_Chronology._ (I.) _The Relative Dates of the Tables._--At least four periods in the history of the dialect can be distinguished in the records we have left to us, by the help of the successive changes (a) in alphabet and (b) in language, which the Tables exhibit. Of these only the outstanding features can be mentioned here; for a fuller discussion the reader must be referred to _The Italic Dialects_, pp. 400 sqq. (a) _Changes in Alphabet._--Observe first that Tables I., II., III. and IV., and the first two inscriptions of V. are in Umbrian character; the Latin alphabet is used in the _Claverniur_ paragraph (V. iii.), and the whole of VI. (_a_ and _b_) and VII. (_a_ and _b_). What we may call the normal Umbrian alphabet (in which e.g. Table I. _a_ is written) consists of the following signs, the writing being always from right to left: [Symbols: A a, B b, D d] (i.e. a sound akin to _r_ derived from _d_), [Symbols: E e, F v, Z z, H h, I i, K k] and g, [Symbols: L l, M m, N n, P p, R r, S s X t] and d, V u and o, [Symbols: F f, S s] (i.e. a voiceless palatal consonant.) In the Latin alphabet, in which Tables VI. and VII. and the third inscription of Table V. are written, _d_ is represented by RS, _g_ by G, but _k_ by C, _d_ by D, _t_ by T, _v_ and _u_ by V but _o_ by O, s by S, though the diacritic is often omitted. The interpunct is double with the Umbrian alphabet, single and medial with the Latin. Tables VI. and VII., then, and V. iii., were written later than the rest. But even in the earlier group certain variations appear. The latest form of the Umbrian alphabet is that of Table V. i. and ii., where the abbreviated form of _m_ (^) and the angular and undivided form of _k_ ([Symbols: k not K] are especially characteristic. Nearest to this is that of Tables III. and IV., which form a single document; then that of I. (a) and (b); earliest would seem that of II. (a) and II. (b). In II. _a_, 18 and 24, we have the archaic letter _san_ (M = _s_) of the abecedaria (E. S. Roberts, _Int. Gr. Epig._ pp. 17 ff.), which appears in no other Italic nor in any Chalcidian inscription, though it survived longer in Etruscan and Venetic use. Against this may be set the use of [Symbol: O] for _t_ in I. _b_ 1, but this appears also in IV. 20 and should be called rather Etruscan than archaic. These characteristics of II. _a_ and _b_ would be in themselves too slight to prove an earlier date, but they have perhaps some weight as confirming the evidence of the language.