The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Taphoi]

In archaeology we always pray and hope that the excavation will unravel some sort of nscription which is a rare finding in its own right...

I repeat, we are lucky to have any inscriptions at all.

If you like ancient graffiti inscriptions, here are some more from the marble blocks of the Amphipolis Tomb. These were published by Professor Bakalakes in 1970.
If we are now saying that any ancient names scrawled as graffiti on the tomb represent occupants, then there might have been a huge number of burials in there at one time
Best wishes,
Andrew
Sorry, may have to wait for Bakalakes, since I'm getting error message that the board limit has been reached on a 77kB upload!

[system1988]

In archaeology we always pray and hope that the excavation will unravel some sort of nscription which is a rare finding in its own right...

I repeat, we are lucky to have any inscriptions at all.

If you like ancient graffiti inscriptions, here are some more from the marble blocks of the Amphipolis Tomb. These were published by Professor Bakalakes in 1970.
If we are now saying that any ancient names scrawled as graffiti on the tomb represent occupants, then there might have been a huge number of burials in there at one time
Best wishes,
Andrew
Sorry, may have to wait for Bakalakes, since I'm getting error message that the board limit has been reached on a 77kB upload!

Taphoi, I don't see simple grafifiti. One of the inscriptions is especially taken care of. Also, one of those inscriptions is located inside the tomb.

Indeed, in ancient buildings we have a lot of graffiti; someone is bound to write something, even extremes like "Someone does someone else", but I cannot imagine anyone writing inside the monument just for the fun of it "I received (the construction material) for Hephaestion's place of worship." It just doesn't add up. Surely the best photos and the official publication are bound to shed even more light on this issue. However, even since 2014 when the tomb was discovered, we all agreed that its purpose was to house an extremely important person.

I am not aware of Bakalakes' publication. If he indeed published those inscriptions under that frame (that they are simple graffitis) then he didn't understand their immense importance and value. This has happened before with even greater arachaeologists who made that same mistake. It's human.

[Taphoi]

In archaeology we always pray and hope that the excavation will unravel some sort of nscription which is a rare finding in its own right...

I repeat, we are lucky to have any inscriptions at all.

If you like ancient graffiti inscriptions, here are some more from the marble blocks of the Amphipolis Tomb. These were published by Professor Bakalakes in 1970.
If we are now saying that any ancient names scrawled as graffiti on the tomb represent occupants, then there might have been a huge number of burials in there at one time
Best wishes,
Andrew
Sorry, may have to wait for Bakalakes, since I'm getting error message that the board limit has been reached on a 77kB upload!

Taphoi, I don't see simple grafifiti. One of the inscriptions is especially taken care of. Also, one of those inscriptions is located inside the tomb.

Indeed, in ancient buildings we have a lot of graffiti; someone is bound to write something, even extremes like "Someone does someone else", but I cannot imagine anyone writing inside the monument just for the fun of it "I received (the construction material) for Hephaestion's place of worship." It just doesn't add up. Surely the best photos and the official publication are bound to shed even more light on this issue. However, even since 2014 when the tomb was discovered, we all agreed that its purpose was to house an extremely important person.

I am not aware of Bakalakes' publication. If he indeed published those inscriptions under that frame (that they are simple graffitis) then he didn't understand their immense importance and value. This has happened before with even greater arachaeologists who made that same mistake. It's human.

Bakalakes did not publish these "Hephaistion" graffiti, but he published may other similar graffiti from the Amphipolis Tomb blocks in AJA in 1970. These were ancient graffiti on the blocks that were found with the lion, but my understanding is that there are others on the monument in situ. The archaeologists are therefore being selective in what they are publishing now.
Some of the other graffiti are very similar in standard and letter form to these "Hephaistion" graffiti.
I use the term graffiti because it goes without saying that these letters are poorly formed by a barely literate hand. They are not formal inscriptions of the kind that you would expect the architect of a temple or tomb of this magnificence to incorporate. They are not part of the design. They deface the design.
It would be helpful if you could provide more information and images of the monograms in rosettes and the word Heroon that you have mentioned that the archaeologists have announced, because I have not seen these things yet. The ones I have seen are from the peribolos and the archaeologists must have known about them even before the sphinxes were announced in August 2014.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[gepd]

One side note first: the work from Bakalakes is from 1940s, he mostly focused on the names on the blocks which was relevant for his name distribution study for the area, which is why there are no references to inscriptions that have no names on them. Also, when Bakalakes did the study, many of the blocks were still unexcavated.

Indeed we know that there are inscriptions from the Strymon collection with other things written on them. The first one who studied them few years earlier that Bakalakes is Prof. Keramopoulos, in his study "Αρχαια εξ' Αμφιπόλεως". He mentions finding inscriptions writing e.g. "ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΑΜΦΙΠΟΛΕΩΣ" (church of Amphipolis). These were not carved on the peribolos marbles but they were found on the same collection of material with peribolos blocks and other stuff forming the Strymon dam near the present site of the lion. Keramopoulos had much less too work with, lot of the blocks were unexcavated then, which is why he did not report the "ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ" inscription. Miller, who collected all visible blocks, did not bother about the inscriptions.

Additionally, one of the three inscriptions with "ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ" was found near the Kasta hill, in the peribolos excavations, according to the recent announcements. That makes certain that the origin of that inscription is not the same as for the graffiti on the Strymon blocks. That is because the graffiti on the Strymon blocks was carved long after they marbles have been extracted from the tumulus structure and they have been moved elsewhere. There are two pieces of evidence pointing to that:

a) Names on the Strymon blocks appear also on the back or the side of the blocks that would have not been visible when these where placed on the peribolos.
b) There is part of the peribolos preserved in excellent state. There is no part of it with names or graffiti on top. Just mason marks. If the names were carved on the Kasta site, the preserved peribolos would have been full of them.

Bakalakes dated the names on the blocks in the 2nd century BC. Later studies (by Mikhailov - no access to that unfortunately) date that to the the first AD centuries. But most importantly, there is a recent master thesis about name distribution in Amphipolis. At the end of the thesis one can find a list of names in Amphipolis and the general area. Hephaestion appears nowhere. You can find the thesis (in Greek) here: http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/131651

It would be surprising if Hephaestion would have been a common name in the first AD centuries, so that it appears in the graffiti of the Strymon blocks. It is even rare for the region for all other periods. Balancing all probabilities, it makes sense that this refers to the known Hephaestion.

You may read some of these thoughts (sorry in Greek) in a simple website a friend and I have made where we list our ideas and brainstorming about Amphipolis. We are not experts, sometimes we are guided by enthusiasm, but we try to do our best (so please be kind ). We also visit the library frequently to get access to articles not available digitally.

https://enneaodoi.wordpress.com/xaragmata/
https://enneaodoi.wordpress.com/xaragmata2/

Note that the above were written before the recent announcements. We hope you like it and that google translate helps those who cant read Greek. Otherwise I am happy to translate part of the text for you - and we of course welcome any comments.

[Taphoi]

...one of the three inscriptions with "ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ" was found near the Kasta hill, in the peribolos excavations, according to the recent announcements. That makes certain that the origin of that inscription is not the same as for the graffiti on the Strymon blocks. That is because the graffiti on the Strymon blocks was carved long after they marbles have been extracted from the tumulus structure and they have been moved elsewhere. There are two pieces of evidence pointing to that:

a) Names on the Strymon blocks appear also on the back or the side of the blocks that would have not been visible when these where placed on the peribolos.
b) There is part of the peribolos preserved in excellent state. There is no part of it with names or graffiti on top. Just mason marks. If the names were carved on the Kasta site, the preserved peribolos would have been full of them.

A very cogent post which deserves a response. Clearly we agree that the blocks found in the Strymon with the lion are from the Amphipolis tomb - mostly from the peribolos wall. Clearly we can agree that some at least of the graffiti inscriptions were put on those blocks after they were taken from the peribolos wall, because some are indeed on sides or backs of blocks. But it is a non sequitur to say that they were carved after the blocks had been removed from the vicinity of the Amphipolis tomb and how do you know whether there are similar inscriptions on the blocks still in situ in the peribolos? Indeed, the revelation of the "Hephaistion" graffiti shows that there are such graffiti inscriptions on the peribolos itself. It is not necessary to suppose that the "Hephaistion" graffiti have an entirely different origin. For example, the men who dismantled the peribolos may have carved the graffiti on those blocks and, if so, they could easily have carved similar graffiti onto the blocks still in situ. It is impossible to say on the available evidence who carved the "Hephaistion" graffiti or exactly when. The very fact that there were people carving graffiti inscriptions onto monuments and marble blocks in the Amphipolis area in ancient times means that it is likely that there are some on the half km long peribolos wall. So:
a) Please could you explain how you know that there are no graffiti (except the "Hephaistion" graffiti) on the peribolos wall?
b) Please would you let us know how you distinguish whether small groups of letters are masons' marks or later graffiti?
c) The larger letters in the "Hephaistion" monogram are common to many names, whereas the smaller letters are completely indistinct in the available photos, so please can you explain how we can be certain that the monograms do indeed read "Hephaistion"?
d) Do you believe that the archaeologists have told us about all the inscriptions and graffiti now?
e) Even if you believe that the monograms do read "Hephaistion", why does this necessarily mean that the entire monument was built in his honour? Why might they not have been carved, for example, as graffiti by a member of his regiment who visited the monument after it was built?

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

We're looking for a male, more than likely a renowned soldier, who was considered a hero or a god. That much is really clear now.There's evidence of offerings according to what they've announced so far, and this has screamed cult since they first got inside etc etc. Assuming dating is correct and places us in the late C4th, taking the location into account, that's going to be quite a select group of individuals. Philip II (at a push, but founder cult etc.), Alexander himself, Hephaestion, or some of the Amphipolis specific or Thracian cults (though Brasidas would be unlikely) and whoever else one wishes to make a plausible case for. So it's something otherwise unattested up until this point, in spite of a century and more of use, or it's something we know about but would hesitate to associate with this mound. We have a monogram inside what appear to be either shields or a rosette/spear pattern which would give us Hephaestion. We have an inscription which can be read as one of the Antigonids doing something for him too. This may be later graffiti and not be related to the original occupant, but that still leaves us looking for a male, more than likely a renowned soldier, who was considered a hero or a god in the late C4th.

[Zebedee]

Quite agree with the last sentence and partially agree that cynicism is warranted because of the politics and funding involved. Thing is, politics and funding will inevitably cast a shadow over such a large and publicized discovery. However, I wonder if the archaeologists themselves were more responsible for the "rope". Having dealt for months with those who publicly claimed to know all the answers about the tomb - even when it was only partially excavated - perhaps they finally realized it was better for their own futures to withhold further information until they were ready to publish. Early on the general public were kept interested by the gradual release of information, but it seems to me that there were academics and others who had never seen the inside of the tomb who were using the tomb mostly for self publicity.

This is the major Greek find to be promoted during the advanced internet age. Mistakes were bound to made regarding the release of information as long as the excavation was incomplete. In the "old days" when they discovered something important they dug it out, assessed the resulting evidence, and then published their conclusions. If their earlier hypotheses were not confirmed by later uncovered evidence, no one in the public arena knew about it. I'm hoping that they don't return to that method with future discoveries given the various earlier attempts which have been made to discredit those involved with this dig. And, please note, I'm not calling out those on the forum who have questioned the findings and the statements released. We exist to discuss and debate and express our opinions and, anonymous as most of us are, I doubt we caused any offense. However, there are those who stood in front of a camera or the press and said something akin to "I am an authority on (insert qualitications) and the archaeologists are wrong". Not a good idea in the long run, although I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are not finished yet ... ... ...

Best Regards,

I think that's more than fair as an assessment. When some universities are running classes on Amphipolis as archaeology via press release, one can appreciate the pressure that they have been under. It's a far cry from cosy chat at the pub over a few beers and being able to amend and adapt ideas as the dig progresses.

Certainly agree, the debate has barely begun on interpretation of this. We're still, even now, lacking a huge chunk of information which they surely must have available to them on something as simple as dating. Full publication will be fascinating.

[Taphoi]

...But what they've said about the wall/ceiling decorations found inside pretty much confirms this is all intended for a man, the chariot is especially interesting - Persia or Homer or games?, and almost certainly one who had crossed that curious boundary into some form of godhood. That much was most evident all the way through without that though. Still leaves the curious question of the remains inside. Look forward to full publication with detailed reasoning.... We're looking for a male, more than likely a renowned soldier, who was considered a hero or a god.

The below shows one of the actual friezes and a rather exotic reconstruction. Parts of this were published previously in rather better definition by the Ministry of Culture. Having compared those photos with this reconstruction, there appear to be rather a lot of details in the reconstruction of which there is no real sign in the close-up photos. Sexing the occupant with anatomical certainty on the basis of these reconstructions of rather poorly preserved paintings would seem a bit adventurous. Angelica Kottaridi has already publicly rubbished the reconstruction below.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

Sexing the occupant with anatomical certainty on the basis of these reconstructions of rather poorly preserved paintings would seem a bit adventurous.

Hardly adventurous, most conservative really.We have a huge lion on top of a large cult site which was active for over a century, decorations depicting suits of armour, horsemen, chariots, accoutrements of war, Delphic tripods, centaurs, winged goddesses... If Kottaridi is right about this tomb then it's C2nd BC in any case, no?

[gepd]

Hi Andrew, thanks for those questions, they help to clarify some things I stated above.

a) Please could you explain how you know that there are no graffiti (except the "Hephaistion" graffiti) on the peribolos wall?

Well, I can't be 100% sure but we have some very nice high-res images and videos from the well-preserved peribolos and one can't see anything that resembles the Strymon block graffiti. That part of the wall looks like new - completely untouched. We don't have pictures of the whole part but I don't believe we are so unlucky that graffiti is only found on the parts we do not see Also, I am nearly certain that the excavators would have said about that graffiti, as they said about the mason marks and the roman crane they found - it would not have been something so ground-breaking to keep secret.

I accept of course that there is a possibility for graffiti to exist on the well-preserved peribolos and we did not see it yet. I just consider it extremely unlikely.

Anyway, have a look here:

http://www.epikaira.gr/var/uploads/tiny ... E%A3+3.jpg

http://content-mcdn.ethnos.gr/filesyste ... 385249.JPG

http://www.anexartitos.gr/wp-content/up ... F%82-w.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MCpUycCqdJ0/U ... F%82-3.jpg



b) Please would you let us know how you distinguish whether small groups of letters are masons' marks or later graffiti?

I don't know how to distinguish them. I just rely on the excavator statements for that. They have shown cases of marks from the wall, these are isolated letters (or maybe 2-3 letters together), not names as on the Strymon blocks and not anything like the recently released "ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ" inscription. They call these mason's marks. Lefantzis also said back in November 2014 that the letter structure is also consistent with a 4th century BC date. Names on the Strymon blocks are from AD centuries. So, if my ignorance on the subject does not mislead me, I think the comparison shows that the ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ inscription functioned different than mason's marks. Images of mason's marks from the peribolos (or other monograms - whatever their function was) are below






c) The larger letters in the "Hephaistion" monogram are common to many names, whereas the smaller letters are completely indistinct in the available photos, so please can you explain how we can be certain that the monograms do indeed read "Hephaistion"?

I personally see most - if not all letters of Hephaestion in the inscription. Yes, Η & Φ stand out, but for me Ω (top right), Α (under the H line), Ι (next to A), Σ (under Ω) and N are easily distinguishable. Hephaestion is a very good candidate for that, but you are right that this is one interpretation, not a fact. I am open to other possibilities - I just can't think of any (again, mostly due to ignorance). The example of ΔΙΖΑ ΑΛΚΟΥ you put earlier has also letters in a mixed form but experts could come out with the correct reading. Not sure how, but they did.

d) Do you believe that the archaeologists have told us about all the inscriptions and graffiti now?

I have no way to know that. I would just wait to hear recorded versions of the talks to clarify some details. I am not sure, for instance, that the published inscription was part of the peribolos but that was excavated next to the peribolos.

e) Even if you believe that the monograms do read "Hephaistion", why does this necessarily mean that the entire monument was built in his honour? Why might they not have been carved, for example, as graffiti by a member of his regiment who visited the monument after it was built?

I am just arguing the letters in the end of the inscription indicate Hephaestion's name -the known Hephaestion, not just some random Amphipolitan with the same name. How does one interpret that is another story.

Some more clarifications:

But it is a non sequitur to say that they were carved after the blocks had been removed from the vicinity of the Amphipolis tomb

Miller said in his article that it was only the peribolos blocks (geisons and orthostates) that had names carved on them. Nothing else that seems to come from the Kasta hill (lion, shields from the lion base) have similar graffiti on them. If all these happened when the tumulus constructions were dismantled, why see carvings on selected parts? My assumption is that the peribolos blocks where collected at different locations than other tomb-tumulus parts.

Also, as we know there were cranes involved in an organized dismantling of the wall. I assume blocks were meant to be moved away for construction material, so they were loaded to be transported away. They were not dismantled to be collected outside Kastas for soldiers and workers to write their names on the back and on the side. And even if they did that, none of them would ever write "ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ" next to his name. None of the other name carvings have anything similar. They are just names (I have read the works by Bakalakes and Keramopoulos). And as said above, there are all (or almost all) letters the can form Hephaestion in there in the recently published inscription. That name appears nowhere else in the region and nothing I have seen from the names on the strymon blocks looks similar to the published inscription.

[Taphoi]

Sexing the occupant with anatomical certainty on the basis of these reconstructions of rather poorly preserved paintings would seem a bit adventurous.

Hardly adventurous, most conservative really.We have a huge lion on top of a large cult site which was active for over a century, decorations depicting suits of armour, horsemen, chariots, accoutrements of war, Delphic tripods, centaurs, winged goddesses... If Kottaridi is right about this tomb then it's C2nd BC in any case, no?

Okay, so I appreciate that you are being conservative, thanks.

But why, conservatively speaking, would

Delphic tripods, centaurs, winged goddesses

be characteristic of a male burial, please?

And why would arms and chariots and people on horses be exclusively male (conservatively)? Would they not be appropriate for a queen who had led her troops into battle, for example?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Zebedee]

From Lefantzis' presentation (thanks GcRap)



Do wonder whether the grave inside that last chamber pre-dates the chamber itself or post-dates the building of the heroon. It's not centred from the back wall and the doors, it's quite deep given the dimensions of the tomb and given the assumption there was something above ground too, and why inhumation anyway?

[Zebedee]

Okay, so I appreciate that you are being conservative, thanks.

But why, conservatively speaking, would

Delphic tripods, centaurs, winged goddesses

be characteristic of a male burial, please?

And why would arms and chariots and people on horses be exclusively male (conservatively)? Would they not be appropriate for a queen who had led her troops into battle, for example?

Best wishes,

Andrew

I think the full sentence you're quoting reads:

We have a huge lion on top of a large cult site which was active for over a century, decorations depicting suits of armour, horsemen, chariots, accoutrements of war, Delphic tripods, centaurs, winged goddesses

Perhaps you're confusing me for someone who plays 'take one decorative element of a tomb, attempt to fit to preconceived theory, move on to next decorative element, repeat'? Not so.

Find me the queen leading her troops into battle on the decorative elements, and I'll be very interested. Eurydice most definitely was at or around Amphipolis after all.

[Taphoi]

Well, I can't be 100% sure but we have some very nice high-res images and videos from the well-preserved peribolos and one can't see anything that resembles the Strymon block graffiti.

But I found some things in your nice high resolution images that might be graffiti and don’t look like the normal finish. You also have to take into account that these blocks have probably only been brushed free of soil (not washed) so there may still be earth in scratches and depressions, making graffiti difficult to discern. These are from your photos:

possiblegraffiti.jpg (9.25 KiB) Viewed 2699 times

possiblegraffiti2.jpg (14 KiB) Viewed 2699 times

possiblegraffiti5.jpg (8.01 KiB) Viewed 2699 times

I don't know how to distinguish them. I just rely on the excavator statements for that.

Whether these scratchings are inscriptions or graffiti or contracts or masons’ marks seems largely to be a matter of subjective interpretation and what is convenient to the argument that they are being used to support. Not the kind of reasoning that can be relied upon in attributing a tomb/monument. In particular it would seem impossible to determine scientifically whether any particular marks are original to the construction of the monument or from later years or centuries. What is required is an holistic study of ALL the letters, monograms and scratchings in order to reach any possible conclusions (and not the selection of certain graffiti in isolation).

I personally see most - if not all letters of Hephaestion in the inscription. Yes, Η & Φ stand out, but for me Ω (top right), Α (under the H line), Ι (next to A), Σ (under Ω) and N are easily distinguishable. Hephaestion is a very good candidate for that, but you are right that this is one interpretation, not a fact. I am open to other possibilities - I just can't think of any (again, mostly due to ignorance). The example of ΔΙΖΑ ΑΛΚΟΥ you put earlier has also letters in a mixed form but experts could come out with the correct reading. Not sure how, but they did.

ΔΙΖΑ ΑΛΚΟΥ is much more obvious than “HEPHAISTION” because all the letters are clear and they are largely in the right order and they are roughly the same size. It is striking that the “HEPHAISTION” letters are not in the right order and some of the smaller letters are at jaunty angles and are located at different places or at different angles within the monogram in different versions (or not there at all in one) and the largest letters are 4 or 5 times taller than the smallest! The archaeologists seem similarly to have moved beyond what can actually reliably be seen in the case of their reconstruction of the painting. Names of places or other things have also to be considered. It would be nice to put high resolution photos of these inscriptions in front of some expert epigraphists who had not heard the current interpretation and to see what they came up with (but that might be impossible now due to the publicity for “HEPHAISTION”).

I have no way to know that. I would just wait to hear recorded versions of the talks to clarify some details. I am not sure, for instance, that the published inscription was part of the peribolos but that was excavated next to the peribolos.

I only know that the slides presented with some of the graffiti are labelled peribolos and that the blocks look a bit like the least tall type of the drafted margin series (Low Full Thickness Wall Blocks). Other reports indicate that one inscription was found on top of the mound where the lion stood.

Miller said in his article that it was only the peribolos blocks (geisons and orthostates) that had names carved on them. Nothing else that seems to come from the Kasta hill (lion, shields from the lion base) have similar graffiti on them. If all these happened when the tumulus constructions were dismantled, why see carvings on selected parts?

I have found records of 429 blocks/fragments (excluding the dozen or so lion fragments) that were dredged from the Strymon. Of these at least 377 are drafted margin series from the peribolos wall of the Amphipolis tomb. Of the remaining 52, 35 were in such a bad state as to be unidentifiable (and you probably would not have been able to see graffiti), 4 others were Roman. So there were only 13 other fragments that might have been from the tomb and these were mostly much smaller than the drafted margin blocks. Therefore it is not statistically significant that the graffiti were only found on the drafted margin blocks, because they constituted about 98% of the available surface area for scrawling graffiti upon.

My assumption is that the peribolos blocks where collected at different locations than other tomb-tumulus parts.

Your assumption would offer another explanation for the graffiti only being on the drafted margin series: i.e. that the graffiti were added at the location from which the blocks were collected (the tomb) and not when all the blocks were brought together at the dam south of Amphipolis.

Also, as we know there were cranes involved in an organized dismantling of the wall. I assume blocks were meant to be moved away for construction material, so they were loaded to be transported away. They were not dismantled to be collected outside Kastas for soldiers and workers to write their names on the back and on the side.

It is not clear that the dismantling and the collection were done at the same time by the same group of people. Even if it was, they may have piled the blocks next to a road for collection by carts some time later. There is really no reason why the graffiti on the Amphipolis blocks could not have been added at the Amphipolis tomb. Also, Bakalakes believed that the dam in which they were subsequently re-used had water flowing over its top surface, so the graffiti could not have been added after they were incorporated in the dam.

And even if they did that, none of them would ever write "ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ" next to his name. None of the other name carvings have anything similar. They are just names (I have read the works by Bakalakes and Keramopoulos).

As you have also pointed out, there were other graffiti that were not analysed so closely, because they did not seem to be names. Graffiti in general is mostly names/monograms/initials with rarer instances of other words/symbols. There is nothing unusual in the graffiti that we are seeing on the Amphipolis tomb blocks. Many ancient monuments have similar ancient graffiti.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Taphoi]

From Lefantzis' presentation (thanks GcRap)



Do wonder whether the grave inside that last chamber pre-dates the chamber itself or post-dates the building of the heroon. It's not centred from the back wall and the doors, it's quite deep given the dimensions of the tomb and given the assumption there was something above ground too, and why inhumation anyway?

It is fairly clear that the cist grave either pre-dates or post-dates the monument, because it is built at a much lower standard than the rest of the monument. Its blocks are roughly hewn limestone. If it were built at the same time as the overlying monument, it ought to be made from finely sculpted marble.
We now have it confirmed by the archaeologists that the tomb was sealed before the Romans arrived in 168BC. So if the cist grave post-dates the monument, it would probably have to have been authorised by the Hellenistic kings of Macedon. But it is very unlikely that they would have authorised a mean burial in the heart of such a monument and there is no real reason why such a later burial would have been off-centre. Also such a Hellenistic burial should have been a cremation. Also nobody would have bothered to seal this tomb unless the bones were important (they would not have cared about preserving already smashed art works and if they had then they would have mended them).
The only thing that really makes sense is that the cist grave is an earlier tomb of somebody disregarded at the time of burial, but subsequently exalted by others. The reason it is off centre is that the builders of the monument did not know its exact location and did not wish to excavate the cist grave to establish its exact location out of reverence for the occupants.
The reason that the principal occupants were not cremated is that, although very important people, they were executed as criminals. The only other explanation yet offered for this is that the bones were Roman burials, after cremation had gone out of fashion. It is much more significant than the overblown "Hephaistion" graffiti story that this Roman explanation for inhumation has now become impossible.
Best wishes,
Andrew