Rotstein, Andrea. 2016. Literary History in the Parian Marble. Hellenic Studies Series 68. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_RotsteinA.Literary_History_in_the_Parian_Marble.2016.
Chapter 1. The Parian Marble
The text was the work of an individual, as the first person of the verb ἀνέγραψα, “I recorded,” indicates. That is, it was a private document, even if intended for public display (the verb means both “to register,” as well as “to set up in public”).  The scope of the inscription is clear from lines 2 and 3. The first line may have included the author’s name, or a general statement of sources and purposes. It is, however, extremely damaged, and not much can be gained from Selden’s transcription, with only twenty-five letters for the first line—that is, about a third of the line (assuming with Jacoby that it contained characters bigger than in most of the text).  Before ἀνέγραψα a complement with genitive, possibly ἐκ / ἐξ . . . παν[τοί]ων [ – – -]νων, may have indicated sources, provenance, or general subject (περί). Τhe nature of what is being inscribed is missing (τοὺς ἀν[), and possibly one line or more are missing at the beginning.  As for the lost end of the inscription, after reaching year 1, a closing section may have specified the motives for setting it up and the place where it was set, perhaps including a dedication, as Jacoby suggested from comparison with the philosophical inscription by Diogenes of Oinoanda (second century CE). 
2. The Discovery of the Parian Marble
3. Scholarship on the Parian Marble
4. The Chronographic System of the Parian Marble
The opening of the inscription announces that the text has a definite time-span: from the kingship of Cecrops until the archonship of Diognetus in Athens and the archonship of an individual in Paros whose name ended in -υαναξ.  The archonship of Diognetus sets a time limit equivalent to the year 264/3 BCE.  The text counts down years between events in the past and that ending point, beginning from 1318 (equivalent to 1581/0 BCE).  As items progress, the number of years decreases.  The use of Athenian kings and archons, instead of Olympiads, may be surprising in a chronicle of panhellenic scope. However, the absence of the Olympiadic framework in the Parian Marble should not be understood as a rejection of a dominant system. The Olympiad system hardly became a standard for ancient historiography before the second century BCE,  and even after it was established, local lists of magistrates continued to be written and employed by officials, as well as by local historians all over the Greek-speaking world. The Athenian archon list, probably compiled and published by 420 BCE, may have been the only chronological system available to the author of the Parian Marble and his sources.  We shall return to this topic in Chapter 5, section 1 below.
5. The Location of the Parian Marble
καλοῦμεν Ἀρχιλόχειον καὶ τοὺς βωμοὺς ἱδρύμεθα
καὶ θύομεν καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ Ἀρχιλόχωι καὶ
τιμῶμεν αὐτόν, καθ’ ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἐθέσπισεν ἡμῖν.
The precise location of the Archilocheion is difficult to establish because of the dispersion and the secondary use of the remains.  However, we can attempt to understand the nature of the Archilocheion by comparison with other shrines named after poets. There was a building named Homereion in second-century BCE Delos.  In the same period, a gymnasion named Homereion is attested in Notion, near Colophon,  and later on in Chios too.  Smyrna had two gymnasia linked to the cult of poets: a Homereion  and a Mimnermeion.  In late third-century Thespiae, Hesiod was honored along with the Muses,  and a boundary stone mentions a religious association of Hesiodians, in relation to the cult of the Muses.  These testimonies indicate that shrines honoring poets in Hellenistic Greece, as other hero shrines, were linked to gymnasia and mouseia.  They strongly support the notion that the Archilocheion was an institution related to literary activities, namely a gymnasion or a mouseion, a hypothesis put forward by Kontoleon, which has elicited much scholarly agreement.  If the Archilocheion was such an institution, it could have been a place for classes, lectures, meetings, recitals, and perhaps even poetic contests, by local as well as by itinerant performers.  The shrine may have been maintained by a professional association, similar to the Hesiodians in Thespiae. Indeed, Mnesiepes’s use of plural verbs for the establishment of Archilochus’s cult suggests that he is a member of a group. Such a synodos or thiasos, as has been suggested, could be a guild of rhapsodes,  similar to the Homeridai, a guild that possibly claimed descent from Archilochus. As in other shrines, the Archilocheion may have guarded Archilochus’s works,  and it may have also housed a collection of books, as mouseia and gymnasia did.