Corydala
ancient city of Lycia in modern-day Turkey
Corydala or Corydalla or Korydalla or Korydala (Ancient Greek: Κορύδαλλα) was a city of ancient Lycia. Anciently, it belonged to the Rhodians, according to Hecataeus, quoted by Stephanus. But it was not in Rhodes, nor was it one of the Rhodian possessions in the Peraea, Caria. The Tabula Peutingeriana marks Corydala (spelt Coridallo) on the road from Phaselis to Patara, and makes the distance between these two places 29 Roman miles (43 km; 27 mi) Pliny places Corydalla in the interior of Lycia, and Ptolemy mentions it with Sagalassus, Rhodia, Phellus, Myra, and other places, as about Mons Massicytus.
There are coins of Corydala of the imperial period, with the epigraph Κορυδαλλεων.
Bishopric
At an early stage, Corydala became the seat of a Christian bishop, a suffragan of the metropolitan see of Myra, the capital of the Roman province of Lycia. In a letter to Amphilochius of Iconium, Saint Basil the Great mentions Bishop Alexander of Corydala as a champion of orthodoxy. Bishop Solon took part in the Council of Ephesus in 431. Palladius was a signatory of the letter that the bishops of Lycia sent in 458 to Byzantine Emperor Leo I the Thracian with regard to the murder of Proterius of Alexandria. Leo or Leontius was the name of a bishop of the see who was at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.
“Corydala” enters the record as ancient city of Lycia in modern-day Turkey. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Corydala, ancient and city can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Corydala” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Corydala, ancient and city provides the most credible route into that argument.
Place names and jurisdictional language are key evidence: both can reveal earlier catalogue descriptions and overlooked record series. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 14, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6006985. Authority coordinates are 36.377, 30.273. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A single description cannot reconcile every naming convention, rebuilding phase or administrative transfer associated with a place. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Treat names, boundaries and functions as historically changeable. Maps, plans, inventories and administrative records can clarify what the place meant at different dates.
- Historic place names
- Jurisdictional context
- Routes into maps and plans
Contemporary maps, plans, listed-building records, estate papers and the responsible local or national archive.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Corydala”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Corydala primary sources, Corydala archive and Corydala research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Corydala”?
- What physical evidence or contemporary plan supports the description?
- Which earlier names or jurisdictions may reveal additional records?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Corydala” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.