333/2 BC, probably commissioned by the Kitians themselves. To this conclusion point: a) the absence of the Secretary’s name and of any clause directing the inscription and exhibition of the decree (see Koehler 1871, 352 et alii); b) according to Schwenk 1985, 142, the spelling inconsistencies; contra Foucart 1873, 131, who suggested the irregularities were the result of a still uncertain orthography and not simply the engraver’s mistakes. The text presents only a few spelling inconsistencies: ἔνποροι (l. 33) and ἐμπόροις (l. 39), τῆι βουλεῖ (ll. 6/7, 19) and τεῖ βουλεῖ (l. 12), Κιτιέων (l. 40) and Κιτιείων (l. 21); ο = ου in Λύκοργος, unless the υ dropped accidentally
ca. 500 BC (dated on letters form)
between 363/2
320-310 BC (see the commentary)
Both palaeography and orthography seem to be consistent with a 1st century BC dating, probably around 50 BC
