Aegina Hotel
Recommended Hotels:
Nearby Locations: Spetses hotel, Athens hotel, Hydra hotel, Poros hotel, Agistri hotel, Piraeus hotel, Lagonissi hotel
Related:
Aegina
Rent A Car
A few words about Aegina:
Aegina (ΑΙΓΙΝΑ in Greek), one of the
Saronic Islands of Greece in the Saronic Gulf, 31 miles (50 km) from Athens.
Tradition derives the name from Aegina, the mother of Aeacus, who was born in
and ruled the island. In shape Aegina is triangular, eight miles (13 km) long
from northwest to southeast, and six miles (15 km) broad, with an area of
about 41 square miles (106 km²). Two thirds of Aegina constitute an extinct
volcano. The northern and western side consist of stony but fertile plains,
which are well cultivated and produce luxuriant crops of grain, with some
cotton, vines, almonds, olives and figs, but the most characteristic crop of
today (1990s) Aegina is the pistachio. The southern volcanic part of the
island is rugged and mountainous, and largely barren. Its highest rise is the
conical Mount Oros in the south, and the Panhellenian ridge stretches
northward with narrow fertile valleys on either side. From the absence of
marshes the climate is the most healthy in Greece.
The island forms part of the modern Uomos of Attica and Boeotia, of which it
forms an eparchy. The sponge fisheries are of considerable importance. The
capital is the town of Aegina, situated at the northwestern end of the island,
the summer residence of many Athenian merchants. Capo d'Istria (1776-1831) had
a large building erected intended for a barracks, which was subsequently used
as a museum, a library and a school. The museum was the first institution of
its kind in Greece, but the collection was transferred to Athens in 1834. A
statue in the principal square comemorates him.
Antiquities
Athena from the east pediment of the Aphaea temple in AeginaThe archaeological
interest of Aegina is centred in the well-known temple on the ridge near the
northern corner of the island. Excavations were made on its site in 1811 by
Baron Haller von Hallerstein and the English architect C. R. Cockerell, who
discovered a considerable number of the sculptures from the pediment, which
was bought in 1812 by the crown prince Louis of Bavaria; the groups were set
up in the Glyptothek at Munich after the figures had been restored by Bertel
Thorvaldsen. His restoration was somewhat drastic, the ancient parts being cut
away to allow of additions in marble, and the new parts treated in imitation
of the ancient weathering.
Various conjectures were made as to the arrangement of the figures. That
according to which they were set up at Munich was in the main suggested by
Cockerell; in the middle of each pediment was a figure of Athena, set well
back, and a fallen warrior at her feet; on each side were standing spearmen,
kneel ing spearmen and bowmen, all facing towards the centre of the
composition; the corners were filled with fallen warriors. In 1901 Professor
Adolf Furtwangler began a more systematic excavation of the site, and the new
discoveries he then made, together with a fresh and complete study of the
figures and fragments in Munich, have led to a rearrangement of the whole,
which, if not certain in all details, may be regarded as approaching finality.
According to this the figures of combatants do not all face towards the
centre, but are broken up, as in other early compositions, into a series of
groups of two or three figures each.
A figure of Athena still occupies the centre of each pediment, but is set
farther forward than in the old reconstruction. On each side of this, in the
western pediment, is a group of two combatants over a fallen warrior; in the
eastern pediment, a warrior whose opponent is falling into the arms of a
supporting figure; other figures also – the bowmen especially – face towards
the angles, and so give more variety to the composition. The western pediment,
which is more conservative in type, represents the earlier expedition of
Heracles and Telamon against Troy; the eastern, which is bolder and more
advanced, probably refers to episodes in the Trojan war. There are also
remains of a third pediment, which may have been produced in competition, but
never placed on the temple. For the character of the sculptures see Greek Art.
The plan of the temple is chiefly remarkable for the unsymmetrically placed
door leading from the back of the cella into the opisthodomus. This
opisthodomus was completely fenced in with bronze gratings; and the excavators
believe it to have been adapted for use as an adytum (shrine). It was disputed
in earlier times whether the temple was dedicated to Zeus or Athena.
Inscriptions found by the recent excavations seem to prove that it must be
identified as the shrine of the local goddess Aphaea, identified by Pausanias
with Britomartis and Dictynna.
These and further German-Greek excavations in the 1960's and 1970's have laid
bare several other buildings, including an altar, early propylaea, houses for
the priests and remains of two earlier temples. The present temple probably
dates from the time of the Persian Wars. In the town of Aegina itself are the
remains of another temple, dedicated to Aphrodite; one column of this still
remains standing, and its foundations are fairly preserved. The fundaments of
another two temples are known on the island, one of which is on the northern
flank of Mt. Oros, today topped by a church.
Ancient History
Aegina, according to Herodotus (v. 83), was a colony of Epidaurus, to which
state it was originally subject. The discovery in the island of a number of
gold ornaments belonging to the latest period of Mycenaean art suggests the
inference that the Mycenaean culture held its own in Aegina for some
generations after the Dorian conquest of Argos and Lacedaemon (see A. J.
Evans, in Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xiii. p. 195). It is probable that
the island was not dorized before the 9th century BC One of the earliest facts
known to us in its history is its membership in the League of Calauria, which
included, besides Aegina, Athens, the Minyan (Boeotian) Orchomenos, Troezen,
Hermione, Nauplia and Prasiae, and was probably an organization of states
which were still Mycenaean, for the oppression of the piracy which had sprung
up in the Aegean as a result of the decay of the naval supremacy of the
Mycenaean princes.
It follows, therefore, that the maritime importance of the island dates back
to pre-Dorian times. It is usually stated on the authority of Ephorus, that
Pheidon of Argos established a mint in Aegina. Though this statement is
probably to be rejected, it may be regarded as certain that Aegina was the
first state of European Greece to coin money. Thus it was the Aeginetes who,
within thirty or forty years of the invention of coinage by the Lydians (c.
700 BC), introduced to the western world a system of such incalculable value
to trade. The fact that the Aeginetan scale of coins, weights and measures was
one of the two scales in general use in the Greek world is sufficient evidence
of the early commercial importance of the island. It appears to have belonged
to the Eretrian league during the Lelante War; hence, perhaps, we may explain
the war with Samos, a leading member of the rival Chalcidian league in the
reign of King Amphicrates (Herod. iii. 59), i.e. not later than the earlier
half of the 7th century B.C. In the next century Aegina is one of the three
principal states trading at the emporium of Naucratis, and it is the only
state of European Greece that has a share in this factory (Herod. ii. 178). At
the beginning of the 5th century it seems to have been an entrepot of the
Pontic grain trade, at a later date an Athenian monopoly (Herod. vii. 147).
Unlike the other commercial states of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., e.g.
Corinth, Chalcis, Eretria and Miletus, Aegina founded no colonies. The
settlements to which Strabo refers (viii. 376) cannot be regarded as any real
exceptions to this statement.
The history of Aegina, as it has come down to us, is almost exclusively a
history of its relations with the neighbouring state of Athens. The history of
these relations, as recorded by Herodotus (v. 79-89; vi. 49-51, 73, 85-94),
involve critical problems of some difficulty and interest. He traces back the
hostility of the two states to a dispute about the images of the goddesses
Damia and Auxesia, which the Aeginetes had carried off from Epidauros, their
parent state. The Epidaurians had been accustomed to make annual offerings to
the Athenian deities Athena and Erechtheus in payment for the Athenian
olive-wood of which the statues were made. Upon the refusal of the Aeginetes
to continue these offerings, the Athenians endeavoured to carry away the
images. Their design was miraculously frustrated – according to the Aeginetan
version, the statues fell upon their knees – and only a single survivor
returned to Athens, there to fall a victim to the fury of his comrades'
widows, who pierced him with their brooch-pins. No date is assigned by
Herodotus for this old feud; recent writers, e.g. J. B. Bury and R. W. Macan,
suggest the period between Solon and Peisistratus, circa 570 BC. It may be
questioned, however, whether the whole episode is not mythical. A critical
analysis of the narrative seems to reveal little else than a series of
aetiological traditions (explanatory of cults and customs, e.g. of the
kneeling posture of the images of Damia and Auxesia, of the use of native ware
instead of Athenian in their worship, and of the change in women's dress at
Athens from the Dorian to the Ionian style.
The account which Herodotus gives of the hostilities between the two states in
the early years of the 5th century BC is to the following effect. Thebes,
after the defeat by Athens about 507 BC, appealed to Aegina for assistance.
The Aeginetans at first contented themselves with sending the images of the
Aeacidae, the tutelary heroes of their island. Subsequently, however, they
entered into an alliance, and ravaged the sea-board of Attica. The Athenians
were preparing to make reprisals, in spite of the advice of the Delphic oracle
that they should desist from attacking Aegina for thirty years, and content
themselves meanwhile with dedicating a precinct to Aeacus, when their projects
were interrupted by the Spartan intrigues for the restoration of Hippias. In
401 BC Aegina was one of the states which gave the symbols of submission
(earth and water) to Persia. Athens at once appealed to Sparta to punish this
act of medism, and Cleomenes I, one of the Spartan kings, crossed over to the
island, to arrest those who were responsible for it. His attempt was at first
unsuccessful; but, after the deposition of Demaratus, he visited the island a
second time, accompanied by his new colleague Leotychides, seized ten of the
leading citizens and deposited them at Athens as hostages.
After the death of Cleomenes and the refusal of the Athenians to restore the
hostages to Leotychides, the Aeginetans retaliated by seizing a number of
Athenians at a festival at Sunium. Thereupon the Athenians concerted a plot
with Nicodromus, the leader of the democratic party in the island, for the
betrayal of Aegina. He was to seize the old city, and they were to come to his
aid on the same day with seventy vessels. The plot failed owing to the late
arrival of the Athenian force, when Nicodromus had already fled the island. An
engagement followed in which the Aeginetans were defeated. Subsequently,
however, they succeeded in winning a victory over the Athenian fleet. Alf the
incidents subsequent to the appeal of Athens to Sparta are expressly referred
by Herodotus to the interval between the sending of the heralds in 491 BC and
the invasion of Datis and Artaphernes in 490 BC (cf. Herod. vi. 49 with 94).
There are difficulties in this story, of which the following are the
principal: – (i.) Herodotus nowhere states or implies that peace was concluded
between the two states before 481 BC, nor does he distinguish between
different wars during this period. Hence it would follow that the war lasted
from shortly after 507 BC down to the congress at the Isthmus of Corinth in
481 BC (ii.) It is only for two years (490 and 491) out of the twenty-five
that any details are given. It is the more remarkable that no incidents are
recorded in the period between Marathon and Salamis, seeing that at the time
of the Isthmian Congress the war is described as the most important one then
being waged in Greece (Herod. vii. 145). (iii.) It is improbable that Athens
would have sent twenty vessels to the aid of the Ionians in 499 BC if at the
time she was at war with Aegina. (iv.) There is an incidental indication of
time, which points to the period after Marathon as the true date for the
events which are referred by Herodotus to the year before Marathon, viz. the
thirty years that were to elapse between the dedication of the precinct to
Aeacus and the final victory of Athens (Herod. v. 89).
As the final victory of Athens over Aegina was in 458 B.C., the thirty years
of the oracle would carry us back to the year 488 BC as the date of the
dedication of the precinct and the outbreak of hostilities. This inference is
supported by the date of the building of the 200 triremes for the war against
Aegina on the advice of Themistocles, which is given in the Constitutiom of
Athens as 483-482 B.C. (Herod. vii. 144; Ath. Pol. r2. 7). It is probable,
therefore, that Herodotus is in error both in tracing back the beginning of
hostilities to an alliance between Thebes and Aegina (c. 507 BC) and in
putting the episode of Nicodromus before Marathon. Overtures were
unquestionably made by Thebes for an alliance with Aegina c. 507 BC, but they
came to nothing. The refusal of Aegina was veiled under the diplomatic form of
sending the Aeacidae. The real occasion of the outbreak of the war was the
refusal of Athens to restore the hostages some twenty years later. There was
but one war, and it lasted from 488 to 481. That Athens had the worst of it in
this war is certain. Herodotus had no Athenian victories to record after the
initial success, and the fact that Themistocles was able to carry his proposal
to devote the surplus funds of the state to the building of so large a fleet
seems to imply that the Athenians were themselves convinced that a supreme
effort was necessary. It may be noted, in confirmation of this view, that the
naval supremacy of Aegina is assigned by the ancient writers on chronology to
precisely this period, i.e. the years 490-480 (Eusebius, Chron. Can. p. 337).
In the repulse of Xerxes I it is possible that the Aeginetans played a larger
part than is conceded to them by Herodotus. The Athenian tradition, which he
follows in the main, would naturally seek to obscure their services. It was to
Aegina rather than Athens that the prize of valour at Salamis was awarded, and
the destruction of the Persian fleet appears to have been as much the work of
the Aeginetan contingent as of the Athenian (Herod. viii. 91). There are other
indications, too, of the importance of the Aeginetan fleet in the Greek scheme
of defence. In view of these considerations it becomes difficult to credit the
number of the vessels that is assigned to them by Herodotus (30 as against 180
Athenian vessels, cf. Greek History, sect. Authorities). During the next
twenty years the Philo-laconian policy of Cimon secured Aegina, as a member of
the Spartan league, from attack. The change in Athenian foreign policy, which
was consequent upon the ostracism of Cimon in 461, led to what is sometimes
called the First Peloponnesian War, in which the brunt of the fighting fell
upon Corinth and Aegina. The latter state was forced to surrender to Athens
after a siege, and to accept the position of a subject-ally (c. 456 B.C.). The
tribute was fixed at 30 talents.
By the terms of the Thirty Years' Truce (445 BC) Athens covenanted to restore
to Aegina her autonomy, but the clause remained a dead letter. In the first
winter of the Peloponnesian War (431 BC) Athens expelled the Aeginetans, and
established a cleruchy in their island. The exiles were settled by Sparta in
Thyreatis, on the frontiers of Laconia and Argolis. Even in their new home
they were not safe from Athenian rancour.1 A force landed under Nicias in 424,
and put most of them to the sword. At the end of the Peloponnesian War
Lysander restored the scattered remnants of the old inhabitants to the island,
which was used by the Spartans as a base for operations against Athens in the
Corinthian War. Its greatness, however, was at an end. The part which it plays
henceforward is insignificant.
It would be a mistake to attribute the fall of Aegina solely to the
development of the Athenian navy. It is probable that the powor of Aegina had
steadily declined during the twenty years after Sabamis, and that it had
declined absolutely, as well as relatively, to that of Athens. Commerce was
the source of Aegina's greatness, and her trade, which appears to have been
principally with the Levant, must have suffered seriously from the war with
Persia. Her medism in 491 is to be explained by her commercial relations with
the Persian Empire. She was forced into patriotism in spite of herself, and
the glory won by Salamis was paid for by the loss of her trade and the decay
of her marine. The completeness of the ruin of so powerful a state – we should
look in vain for an analogous case in the history of the modern world – finds
an explanation in the economic conditions of the island, the prosperity of
which rested upon a basis of slave-labour. It is impossible, indeed, to accept
Aristotle's (cf. Athenaeus vi. 272) estimate of 470,000 as the number of the
slave-population; it is clear, however, that the number must have been out of
all proportion to that of the free inhabitants. In this respect the history of
Aegina does but anticipate the history of Greece as a whole. The
constitutional history of Aegina is unusually simple. So long as the island
retained its independence the government was an oligarchy. There is no trace
of the heroic monarchy and no tradition of a tyrannis. The story of Nicodromus,
while it proves the existence of a democratic party, suggests, at the same
time, that it could count upon little support.
Pericles called Aegina the eye-sore (leme) of the Peiraeus. The physician Paul
of Aegina came from here, and was the most respected medical scholar of the
Byzantine Empire for many years.
Modern History
Aegina passed with the rest of Greece under the successive dominations of
Macedon, the Aetolians, Attalus of Pergamum and Rome. In 1537 the island, then
a prosperous Venetian colony, was overrun and ruined by the pirate Barbarossa
(Khair-ed-Din). One of the last Venetian strongholds in the Levant, it was
ceded by the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718) to the Turks. In 1826-1828 the town
became for two years (Jan. 1828 - Dec. 1829) the first capital of Modern
Greece. Today Aegina is a famous tourist destination. It takes about 35
minutes to arrive in Aegina from the Piraus port.
Communities and villages
Aegina the city
Kipseli
Agia Marina
Anitseon
Kontos
Kypseli
Marathon
Mesagros
Metochi
Perdika
Portes
Souvala
Vagia
Vathy
Greek Hotel Bookings - All rights reserved