This article welcomes the recent proposal of Michael Schulte (2024) for a periodisation of early North Germanic, while pointing out problematic premises and criteria for the delimitation of the proposed subperiods. It is argued that in delimiting linguistic periods there is more to gain than lose for the clarity of scholarly argument if preference is given to linguistic rather than graphemic or socio-cultural criteria, even if it means that reconstructed, rather than ambiguously attested features, are given preference. The relevant chapter of a recent book by Nelson Goering (2023) is also reviewed to cast light on the syncope era. Elements and insights are proposed for a periodisation and labelling of early North Germanic suited for discussion on diachronic structural change.