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
issued in the seventh year of the kingdom of Ptolemy (i.e. Ptolemy III) son of Ptolemy (II) and Arsinoe (240 BC), on the second day of the month Dystros (February: Dittenberger et alii; May-June: Sherk), under the priesthood of Theodotos
