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
Second century BC. With regard to paleography, the date fluctuates from the end of the 3rd century BC to the middle of the 2nd; the numismatic records of the city could limit it to the period 190-146 BC. Anyway 146 BC is an absolute terminus post quem non due to subsequent Roman domination: no city under Roman rule would have been free to punish anyone with death
365-359 BC
300 BC ca.
between 363/2
446/5 BC
350
