Kingdom of Duklja
Duklja
10th century–1186
Kingdom of Duklja (Dioclea) in 1089
Kingdom of Duklja (Dioclea) in 1089
CapitalBar
Shkodër
Common languagesOld Serbian
Religion
Christianity
GovernmentMonarchy
Prince/King 
• 10th century
Petar (first known)
• 1046 – 1081
Mihailo I (first king)
• fl. 1180 – 1186
Mihailo III (last independent)
History 
• Established
10th century
1077
1186
Preceded by		Succeeded by
Byzantine Empire
Grand Principality of Serbia
Today part ofAlbania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
Montenegro
Serbia

Duklja (Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Дукља; Greek: Διόκλεια, romanized: Diokleia; Latin: Dioclea) was a medieval South Slavic state which roughly encompassed the territories of modern-day southeastern Montenegro, from the Bay of Kotor in the west to the Bojana River in the east, and to the sources of the Zeta and Morača rivers in the north. First mentioned in 10th– and 11th century Byzantine chronicles, it was a vassal of the Bulgarian Empire between 997 and 1018,[1] and then of the Byzantine Empire until it became independent in 1040 under Stefan Vojislav (fl. 1034–43) who rose up and managed to take over territories of the earlier Serbian Principality, founding the Vojislavljević dynasty. Between 1043 and 1080, under Mihailo Vojislavljević (r.  1050–81), and his son, Constantine Bodin (r.  1081–1101), Duklja saw its apogee. Mihailo was given the nominal title King of Slavs by the Pope after having left the Byzantine camp and supported an uprising in the Balkans, in which his son Bodin played a central part. Having incorporated the Serbian hinterland (known as Grand Principality of Serbia, and anachronistically as Raška) and installed vassal rulers there, this maritime principality emerged as the most powerful Serb polity, seen in the titles used by its rulers ("Prince of Serbia", "of Serbs"). However, its rise was short-lived, as Bodin was defeated by the Byzantines and imprisoned; pushed to the background, his relative and vassal Vukan became independent in Raška, which continued the fight against the Byzantines while Duklja was struck with civil wars. Between 1113 and 1149 Duklja was the centre of Serbian–Byzantine conflict, with members of the Vojislavljević as protégés of either fighting each other for power. Duklja was then incorporated as a crown land of the Grand Principality of Serbia ruled by the Vukanović dynasty, subsequently known as Zeta, remaining so until the fall of the Serbian Empire in the 14th century.

Etymology

In historiography, K. Jirechek was the first to use "Duklja".[2] Doclea was originally the name of the Roman city on the site of modern Podgorica (Ribnica), built by Roman Emperor Diocletian, who hailed from this region of Roman Dalmatia. The Romanized Illyrian tribe known as Docleatae that inhabited the area derived their name from the city.[3] In later centuries, the Romans hypercorrected the name to Dioclea, wrongly guessing that an i had been lost due to vulgar speech patterns. Duklja is the later Slavic version of the name of this region, attributed to the principality under Byzantine suzerainty ("Diokleia", Διόκλεια). The demonym, or tribal name, appearing in De Administrando Imperio was "Dioklētianoi" (Διοκλητιανοί).

Geography

According to De Administrando Imperio (948–952), in chapter 35, Diokleia (Διόκλεια) included the "large, inhabited cities" of Gradetai, Nougrade, and Lontodokla.[4] Gradetai may have been Starigrad, Nougrade may have been Prevlaka, while the location of Lontodokla is uncertain.[4][5]

According to the later, somewhat dubious[6] source, Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, a ruler named Hvalimir who was alleged to be an ancestor of Jovan Vladimir (ca. 990–1016), held Zeta and its towns, and the following counties: Lusca (Luška), Podlugiae (Podlužje), Gorsca (Gorska), Cupelnich (Kupelnik), Obliquus (Oblik), Prapratna, Cermeniza (Crmnica) and Budua (Budva) with Cuceva (Kučevo) and Gripuli (Grbalj).[7]

Since the 12th century, the term Zeta began to replace the name Duklja.

De Administrando Imperio

The DAI claims that Duklja had been made desolate by the Avars and "repopulated in the time of the Emperor Heraclius, just as were Croatia and Serbia" (i.e. in the first half of the 7th century), by Slavs.[8] While he clearly states that the neighboring principalities of Serbia, Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia and Kanalites had been settled by the 'unbaptized Serbs', he mentions Duklja simply as having been settled by 'Slavs'. The statements of various Byzantine writers in which the Diocleans are also called as Serbs, Croats, and Dalmati do not allow equalization of Duklja inhabitants until 12th century either with the Serbs or with the Croats.[A][9] Scholars have debated at length as to the reliability of DAI. For example, Francis Dvornik and Florin Curta, among others, suggested that the DAI was a political document, rather than a strictly historical one and that it probably indicates that the coastal županijas were under the authority of the Serbian prince, Časlav Klonimirović, in the mid-10th century.[10][11] Tibor Živković, Neven Budak and Hrvoje Gračanin also concluded that a closer reading suggests that the Constantine consideration about regional ethnic identity is based on Serbian political rule and expansion in the 10th century which does not necessarily indicate ethnic origin.[12][13][14][15][16] Relja Novaković also came to a similar conclusion.[17] John V.A. Fine argues "given that Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably this would have also been a Serb region".[18] Ivo Banac proposed that the DAI mention that a part of the Croats "split off and took control of Illyricum and Pannonia" after settling western part of the province of Dalmatia could be connected to Duklja, while Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja calls that area as Red Croatia.[19] According to historian Sima Ćirković, although Constantine VII does not mention tribes of whom peoples of Duklja originate, the authors of the XI century considered rulers of Zeta to be Serbs and sometimes call their land Serbia. Ćirković also considers that this narrow scientific question has been politicized by opposing Diocleans to Serbs and ignoring historical sources from 11th and 12th century.[20] The dubious Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, compiled in 1298–1301 by a Cistercian monk in the service of Paul I Šubić of Bribir, nevertheless if does again promote mere Byzantine confusion over Serbs and Croats, with other historical sources does allude to the existence of Croats and their political influence far into Montenegrin inland until the late 12th century.[21]

Ultimately, the origins of Duklja are not known with certainty, for the literary evidence often rests on semi-legendary genealogies. Moreover, what actually constituted a people (gens) in the Middle Ages has been rigorously debated. There is no clear evidence that peoples known as Serbs or Croats migrated en masse as coherent nations able to resettle large territories,[22][23] and that arrived as small military elites which assimilated and organized other already settled Slavs.[23][24] Both Florin Curta and John Fine, among other medievalists, have argued that ethnonyms such as Serb or Croat were primarily political labels referring to a dux and his retinue of nobles as well as military elite, while on a lower level it also referred the mass of commoners who inhabited the territory under the often nominal and transient rule of such leaders. There is little evidence that a modern notion of nation-type ethnicity, and the values associated with it, existed in medieval societies.[25] Rather, some sort of group identity began to form within the Balkans from the late 7th century as Slavic notables formed a system of alliances. This coincides with the final demise of Avar hegemony over the western Balkans.[26] At the same time, the Byzantines had begun to re-establish some control in parts of the Balkans after the 7th-century collapse of imperial control. The establishment of the Byzantine theme of Dyrrhachium facilitated diplomatic contacts between the East Romans and the Adriatic Sclaviniae.

Rather, for the general masses, identity was rooted primarily with one's own clan, village and region. As Fine states, "In this large region settled by Slavs, all of whom spoke the same language, certain political entities emerged, and that is all that they were, political entities".[27] Duklja was one such polity, and its subsequent history was closely intertwined with that of Serbia/Rascia and the Byzantine Empire, and as well as Rome and 'western' powers. As such Duklja is seen as one of the medieval Serb states and was the political and cultural predecessor of modern Montenegro.[28][29][30]

Early history

Little is known about Duklja prior to the 11th century. The main source on the history of early South Slavic states is De Administrando Imperio by Emperor Constantine VII (compiled before 952). The work mentions virtually nothing about Duklja apart from that it was settled by Slavs and was ruled by the Byzantine Emperors. It probably did not exist as an established, independent polity before the late 10th century. The Byzantines ruled over coastal cities such as Doclea, Bar, Kotor, and the hinterland surrounding these. Archaeological evidence (a personal seal belonging to "Peter of Diokleia") suggests that local officials governed this small region in the name of the Emperor. The Slav regions that were not directly under Byzantine rule (such as Travunia) were organized into numerous župa, (roughly, a county) ruled by local families.

Adriatic Slavic principalities in ca. 814 AD.

Slav raids on Eastern Roman territory are mentioned in 518, and by the 580s they had conquered large areas referred to as Sclavinia ("Slavdom", from Sklavenoi).[31] Duklja was settled by Slavs predominantly during the 7th century, although the area was subject to raids by Avars and Slavs from the 6th century. Being a mountainous region, it perhaps served as an area of refuge for pre-Slavic populations.[32] According to Noel Malcolm, today's western Serbia was area where Serbs settled in 7th century and from there they expanded their rule on territory of Duklja.[33] Prince Višeslav (fl. 768–814), the first known Serbian monarch by name, ruled the hereditary lands (Županias, "counties") of Neretva, Tara, Piva, Lim. He managed to unite several more provinces and tribes into what would become the Serbian Principality. Višeslav was succeeded by his son Radoslav and then Prosigoj, during that time the Serbs were people "who are said to hold a great/large part of Dalmatia" (ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur, Royal Frankish Annals, 822),[34][35][36][37] but according to John (Jr.) Fine, it was hard to find Serbs in this area since the Byzantine sources were limited to the southern coast, but it is possible that among other tribes existed a tribe or group of small tribes of Serbs.[38] Prince Vlastimir further united Serbian tribes against the growing threat from the Bulgarian Empire, his realm spanned over southwestern Serbia, much of Montenegro, eastern Herzegovina and southeastern Bosnia.[39] Prince Petar Gojniković defeated Tišemir of Bosnia, annexing the valley of Bosna.[40] He then expanded along the Neretva, annexing the Narentines, where he seems to have come into conflict with Michael Višević, a Bulgarian ally and the ruler of Zahumlje (with Trebinje and most of what would later be Duklja).[41] Michael Višević heard of the possible alliance between Serbia and the Byzantines, and warned Symeon.[41] Symeon defeats Petar[42] and in the following years there is a power struggle between the Bulgars and Byzantines over Serbian overlordship.[43] Prince Časlav ruled over a confederacy of tribes covering an expansive area.[44] Some consider he took over regions previously held by Michael, who disappears from sources in 925.[45]

Lead stamp of archont Petar (or Predimir) (9th century), a Byzantine viceroy; The Holy Virgin Mary with the Christ Child (left) and inscription in Greek "+ Petar archont of Dioklia AMIN" (right).

After Časlav died in ca. 960, Stari Ras and probably also Serbian lands were annexed by the Byzantines who formed Catepanate of Ras. A Peter, whose seal has been found, was the archon Diokleias probably at the turn of the 11th century. A Serbian diplomatic mission, likely sent from Duklja, arrived at the Byzantine capital of Constantinople and was recorded in a charter of the Great Lavra Monastery, written in 993.[46] In the 11th century, Jovan Vladimir ruled Duklja, with his court centered in Bar on the Adriatic coast; he held much of the Pomorje under his control including Travunija and Zachlumia. His realm may have stretched west- and northwards to include some parts of the Zagorje (inland Serbia and Bosnia) as well. Vladimir's pre-eminent position over other Slavic nobles in the area explains why Emperor Basil approached him for an anti-Bulgarian alliance. With his hands tied by war in Anatolia, Basil required allies for his war against Tsar Samuel, who ruled the Bulgarian empire stretching over Northern Bulgaria, Western Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Raška and Epirus. Samuel invaded Duklja in 997,[1] and pushed through Dalmatia up to the city of Zadar, incorporating Bosnia and Serbia into his realm. After defeating Vladimir, Samuel reinstated him as a vassal Prince. We do not know what Vladimir's connection was to the previous Serbian dynasty as much of what is written in the Chronicles of the Priest of Duklja about the genealogy of the Doclean rulers is mythological.[47] Vladimir was murdered by Vladislav, Samuel's brother and successor, circa 1016 AD. The last prominent member of his family, his uncle Dragimir, was killed by some local citizens in Kotor in 1018. That same year, the Byzantines had defeated the Bulgarians, and in one masterful stroke re-took virtually the entire Balkans.

Rise

The Byzantine victory over the Bulgarians was a critical development in Balkan history. The Byzantines ruled most of the Balkans – Bulgaria, Serbia, Duklja, and Bosnia all fell back under Byzantine rule for the first time since the 6th century. Over much of the 11th century, we hear very little about events from the interior. Central Serbia was probably under the jurisdiction of the strategos (governor) of Sirmium – Constantine Diogenes. Some historians suggest that Duklja was ruled directly by the strategos of Dyrrhachium, while others posit that a native prince (whose name has not survived) was allowed to remain, ruling as a Byzantine vassal. Either way, the Slavic nobility was under Byzantine control.

Short-lived as it was, Vladimir's influence in Balkan politics shifted the centre of Serbian rule from inland Serbia to the coast. This was a "renewed Serbian state centered on Duklja".[48]

In the 1030s, as Skylitzes and Kekaumenos have written, Stefan Vojislav, who held the title of "archont, and toparch of the kastra of Dalmatia, Zeta and Ston",[49] led the "Serbs who renounced Byzantine rule".[50] According to the CPD, he was a nephew of Vladimir. In 1034, he took "Duklja" while the Byzantines were switching thrones.[50] The Byzantines retaliated by sending in troops from Dyrrhachium and captured Vojislav, who was taken prisoner to Constantinople. He managed to escape and began a guerrilla resistance from Duklja's mountains. He defeated several Byzantine expeditions and liberated most of Duklja. A Slav rebellion centered on Belgrade, organised by Peter Delian in the late 1030s, worked in Vojislav's favour by diverting attention from Duklja. He used this to assert rule from his capital in Scutari, and extended his rule from Duklja to Travunia and a part of Zachlumia. He besieged the Byzantine city of Dyrrhachium and held the lands surrounding it.[51]

In 1042, another Byzantine attack was defeated. The Byzantines had sent a "coalition" of vassal Slavic chiefs to fight Voislav. The coalition consisted of the Župan of Bosnia, Knez (Prince) Ljutovid of Zachlumia and the Župan of Raska. Fine suggests that under Byzantine dominance, "Rascia" had in the 1040s emerged as yet another Serbian state (roughly centered on what is now southern Serbia and Kosovo.[51] Vojislav won a great victory against his attackers. He overthrew ljutovid and placed the region entirely under his control. Duklja was undoubtedly the leading Slavic state.[48] Vojislav probably died in 1043. Of his 5 sons, Mihailo (Michael) eventually secured rule by 1046. He was an apt diplomat, he fostered good relations with the Byzantines by marrying one of the Emperor's relatives, earning himself the title protostrator. He also entered diplomatic relations with the western powers by marrying one of his sons, Constantine Bodin, to the daughter of the Norman governor of Bari. Michael conquered Rascia from the Byzantines in the 1060s and assigned one of his sons, Petrislav as ruler. In 1072, he supported another Slav rebellion in Macedonia by sending a force led by his son Constantine Bodin. After initial success, The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja claims that Bodin was proclaimed Tsar Peter III of Bulgaria. A Byzantine retaliation, however, resulted in Bodin's capture, only to be freed by Venetian mercenaries hired by his father.

Mihailo I of Duklja, the first recognized ruler of Duklja on a fresco in the Church of St. Michael in Ston: He was crowned King of Slavs and known as Ruler of Serbs and Tribals.[52]

At some point during his rule, Michael acquired the title of King. Most scholars place this date to 1077, when he received a legate from the Pope referring to him as the King of Slavs. However, Curta suggests that Michael may have been King as early as 1053, since he proclaimed himself 'King' sometime after receiving the protostrator title from the Emperor. However, formal recognition as King in medieval Europe required acknowledgement either from the Pope or the Byzantine Emperor. Either way, he was King by 1077.

When Michael died in 1081, he was succeeded by his son Constantine Bodin. The Normans attacked southern Dalmatia, capturing Dyrrhachium and Ragusa. Bodin was expected to aid the Emperor at Dyrrhachium, instead he remained idle (possibly as part of a pre-conceived plan with the Normans) and watched the Byzantines get utterly defeated. During his early rule, energy spent consolidating his rule and meddling with Byzantine-Norman matters diverted Bodin's attention from other parts of his realm. The "Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja" notes that Bodin sent expedition into Bosnia and Rascia. Since his father, Michael, had already captured Raska earlier, it must have slipped out of Duklja's control. Bodin successfully marched against Raska and placed his cousins Vukan and Marko (the sons of Petrislav) as župans. He also captured Bosnia, and placed one of his courtiers, Stipan, to rule in his name. Although Bodin was recognised as 'King of Duklja and Dalmatia, there is no evidence to suggest that Bosnia, Zachlumia, Duklja and Rascia were incorporated into an integrated kingdom. Each region retained its own hereditary nobility, but were under the political and military sway of Duklja.[47] By 1085 the Byzantines got the upper hand in their wars with the Normans, recapturing Dyrrachium and Ragusa. In 1090, they punished Bodin for his impudence, possibly capturing him for the second time, and not much is known about him subsequently until he dies in c. 1101. Raska, Zahumlje and Bosnia probably broke free from Dukljan vassalage.

In the 10th century, following the Synod of Split, Split gained jurisdiction over much of the Dalmatian coast, except southern regions (including most of Duklja), which were under the Archbisphopric of Dyrrhachium. However, Split's pre-eminent position was soon challenged by other cities vying for metropolinate status – Bar and Dubrovnik (Ragusa). The East-West Schism would soon have a great impact upon Serbia, not only religiously, but also politically. Since Serbia was positioned at the border zone between Roman and Constantinopolitan jurisdiction, Serb rulers tried to exploit this rivalry to their advantage. The Slavs who lived along the southern Dalmatian coast fell under the religious jurisdiction of Rome, via the Archbishops of Split, Bar and Ragusa. The rest, in the hinterland stretching to Serbia, were under the Patriarch of Constantinople via the Archbishops of Ohrid, Sirmium and Dyrrhachium. King Mihailo's prerogative was to establish an autocephalous Slavic Church – an independent state requires an independent church. For political reasons, he turned to Rome, since at the time he was in less than amicable relations with Byzantium. Michael presumed that the Pope would jump at the chance to expand his jurisdiction in southern Dalmatia, but Michael's wish was not easily forthcoming. Although some studies have stated that his request to raise Bar to an Archbishopric was granted in 1067, it seems that the cited bull is not authentic. In 1089, Constantine Bodin managed to raise the bishopric of Bar to an Archbishopric, by supporting the pope against an antipope. The suffragan bishops were to be: Kotor, Ulcinj, Svač, Skadar, Drivast, Pula, Ras, Bosnia and Trebinje.[53] In obtaining its promotion, it acquired a much larger diocese, including territory that earlier had not been under the pope – territories of the metropolitan of Durazzo and Archbishop of Ochrid, two sees that recognized the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.[53] The Bar Archbishopric's new territory were merely theoretical – the pope's edict could only affect the churches that recognized Rome.[53] Making Rascia a suffragan to Bar had little meaning, as most of its churches were under Constantinople, and there is no evidence of Vukan changing adherence to Rome.[53] Durazzo and Ochrid may have suffered minimal territorial losses along the coast, Duklja was briefly a subject to Rome, however inland Duklja was not affected, and along with much of Duklja's coast (like most of Kotor) was to retain its loyalty to Orthodoxy.[53]

Decline

The chuch of St. Savas in Budva, consecrated in 1142[54]

With Bodin gone, his Norman wife, Jaquinta, feared that Bodin's nephew, Branislav, would try to seize power before her young children could take the throne. She ordered the arrest of Branislav and his family and Branislav died in captivity, while his other 6 brothers and sons found asylum in Ragusa. Thus in the haste to claim the throne, seeds of family hatred were planted among the extended family. After Bodin died, his half-brother Dobroslav II gained the throne of Duklja. Seeing a weak Duklja, the Byzantines started to meddle, sending Kočopar, one of Branislav's exiled brothers to capture the throne. He managed to get assistance from Vukan of Raška, and together they beat Dobroslav. However, there was a falling out between Kočopar and Vukan. Vukan drove out Kočopar, who then died in exile. The Doclean nobles then elected a Vladimir, yet another relative, who ruled in peace as a Byzantine vassal. But Jaquinta had not given up. After Vladimir died, she had Dobroslav II (who was still in jail) castrated and blinded in case he were to gain the throne, thus securing the throne for her son Đurađ (George), c. 1114–18. She had gained support from an anti-Byzantine faction of nobles. Branislav's family again fled to Byzantine safety, this time in Dyrrhachium. There they gained support from the Byzantines, who ousted Đurađ and imprisoned Jaquinta. Grubeša, one of Branislav's sons, was placed on the throne in 1118. He ruled peacefully until 1125. Đurađ had fled to Rascia, and secured the support of the new Rascian Grand Župan, Uroš, believed to be the nephew of Vukan. Uroš was aligned with the Hungarians, and was anti-Byzantine. He invaded Duklja and placed Đurađ back on the throne. Yet another Byzantine intervention ousted Đurađ for the second time, capturing him, and he died in captivity. Gradinja, one of Grubeša's brothers was then placed as King, the last ruler to hold such a title in Duklja. He died a natural death in 1146, and was succeeded by his son Radoslav. Radoslav only bore the title Knez (Prince).

Duklja's long internecine strife was devastating for its status, as it was reduced back to a Principality dependent on Byzantine support, and was increasingly losing territory to Raska. By the time of Radoslav's reign as prince, he only held a small strip of land on the Dukljan coast (From Kotor to Ulcinj). By 1166, much of Duklja was occupied by Rascia, and in 1186, Stefan Nemanja annexed Duklja in its entirety after defeating the last Doclean prince – Mihailo.

List of rulers

The principality then came under the rule of the Nemanjić dynasty, through the branch of Vukan Nemanjić of Duklja, and his son George II of Duklja. At times, a royal title including "Duklja" was adopted, however, "of the Maritime lands" was mostly used throughout the Middle Ages.

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Duklja.

Notes

  1. ^
    Duklja was one of the "Serbian principalities" of the High Middle Ages.[55][56][57][58] The 11th-century chronicles state that the people of what is known in historiography as Duklja (the polity was variously called "Serbia", "Dalmatia", etc) were "Serbs" (Σέρβος) or "Croats". The rulers were titled, among others, "Prince of Serbs/Serbia":
    • According to George Kedrenos (fl. 1050s), Stefan Vojislav was the "Prince of Serbia",[59] while according to John Skylitzes (fl. 1057–59), the "Prince of the Serbs" (ὁ τῶν Σέρβων ἄρχων).[60]
    • According to Kedrenos and Skylitzes, Mihailo Vojislavljević was the "Prince of Tribali and Serbs" (Τριβαλλών και Σέρβων...αρχηγός[61]/ Τριβαλλῶν καὶ Σέρβων...ἀρχηγός[62])
    • According to Skylitzes, "In the first year of the reign of Michael, the 11th indiction, the Serbian people, also called the Croats, set out to enslave Bulgaria"[63]
    • According to Nikephoros Bryennios, "the tribe of Slavs rejected the Romans' yoke and ravaged and plundered Bulgaria; Skopje and Niš were also looted; Sirmium and the lands lying around the Sava River and the towns along the Ister near Vidin were in a state of emergency. And then Croats and Diocleans revolted and ravaged all of Illyricum"[64]
    • According to Joannes Zonaras, "In the third year of his reign [that of Michael VII Doukas], the tribe of Croats, who some people also call Serbs, moved and tried to take the land of the Bulgarians"[64]

References

  1. 1 2 Ćirković 2004.
  2. ↑ Ђорђе Јанковић. "О називу Диоклeје пре Немањића".
  3. ↑ A Stipcevic (1977). The Illyrians. History and Culture. Noyes Press. p. 31. ISBN 0-8155-5052-9.
  4. 1 2 Dumbarton Oaks (1 January 2005). Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art: The East (continued), Constantinople and environs, unknown locations, addenda, uncertain readings. Dumbarton Oaks. pp. 154–. ISBN 978-0-88402-309-8. Constantine concludes chapter 35 by stating, "In the country of Diocleia are the large, inhabited cities of Gradetai, Nougrade, Lontodokla" (trans. Jenkins). Gradetai may be the coastal city of Starigrad, and Nougrade is perhaps Prevlaka, south ...
  5. ↑ Vladimir Ćorović (13 January 2014). Istorija srpskog naroda. eBook Portal. p. 78–. GGKEY:XPENWQLDTZF.
  6. ↑ Slovo. Vol. 47–49. 1999. p. 22. ... of Dioclea (or in Croatian Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina), a text of somewhat dubious value as a historical source
  7. ↑ Starinar. Arheološki institut. 1884. p. 69. ДУКЉАНИНОВА ПРАПРАТНА. „Хвалимиру даде зетску област с градовима, и ове жупе: Лушку, Подлужје, Горску, Куписник, 0блик, Прапратну, Црмницу, Будву с Клевом (Cuceva) и Грбаљ." Овако пише Дукљанин,") причајући како ј
  8. ↑ Moravscik, 1967, p. 165
  9. ↑ Vedriš, Trpimir (2015). "Balkan 'sklavinias' and Bulgaria – Croatia in the international context". Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 − oko 1150) [Croatian lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550. – c. 1150.)] (in Croatian). Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. p. 593. ISBN 978-953-150-942-8. Tako Skilica Dukljane naziva Srbima, a Kekaumen za dukljanskog vladara Vojislava piše da je »Travunjanin Srbin«. Skiličin Nastavljač i Ivan Zonara očigledno brkaju ili izjednačavaju Srbe i Hrvate u Duklji. Mihajlo Devolski pak stanovnike Duklje naziva Hrvatima. Nicifor Brijenije pišući o protu bizantskom ustanku 1072. Hrvate i Dukljane jasno razlikuje od makedonskih Slavena. Konačno, Ana Komnena podložnike dukljanskih vladara Mihajla, Bodina i Vukana naziva Dalmatima. Na temelju toga može se zaključiti da »navodi bizantskih pisaca ne dopuštaju izjednačavanje stanovnika Duklje u 11. i 12. st. bilo sa Srbima, bilo s Hrvatima«
  10. ↑ Dvornik et al. 1962, p. 139, 142: C.’s general claim that the Zachlumians were Serbs is, therefore, inaccurate; and indeed his later statements that the Terbouniotes (34/4—5), and even the Narentans (36/5-7), were Serbs and came with the Serbs, seem to conflict with what he has said earlier (32/18-20) on the Serb migration, which reached the new Serbia from the direction of Belgrade. He probably saw that in his time all these tribes were in the Serb sphere of influence, and therefore called them Serbs, thus ante-dating by three centuries the state of affairs in his own day ... The Serbs at an early date succeeded in extending their sovereignty over the Terbouniotes and, under prince Peter, for a short time over the Narentans (see on 32/67). The Diocleans, whom C. does not claim as Serbs, were too near to the Byzantine tkema of Dyrrhachion for the Serbs to attempt their subjugation before C.’s time ... For C.’s statement that the Pagani are ‘descended from the unbaptized Serbs’ (36/5-6), see on 33/18-19. It is obvious that the small retinue of the Serbian prince could not have populated Serbia, Zachlumia, Terbounia and Narenta.
  11. ↑ Curta (2006, p. 210):According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Slavs of the Dalmatian zhupanias of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travounia, and Konavli all "descended from the unbaptized Serbs."51 This has been rightly interpreted as an indication that in the mid-tenth century the coastal zhupanias were under the control of the Serbian zhupan Časlav, who ruled over the regions in the interior and extended his power westwards across the mountains to the coast.
  12. ↑ Živković, Tibor (2006). Portreti srpskih vladara (IX—XII vek) (in Serbian). Belgrade. p. 60. ISBN 86-17-13754-1. English transl. 'Constantine Porphyrogenitus explicitly calls the inhabitants of Zahumlje Serbs who have settled there since the time of Emperor Heraclius, but we cannot be certain that the Travunians, Zachlumians and Narentines in the migration period to the Balkans really were Serbs or Croats or Slavic tribes which in alliance with Serbs or Croats arrived in the Balkans. The emperor-writer says that all these principalities are inhabited by Serbs, but this is a view from his time, when the process of ethnogenesis had already reached such a stage that the Serbian name became widespread and generally accepted throughout the land due to Serbia's political domination. Therefore, it could be concluded that in the middle of the 10th century the process of ethnogenesis in Zahumlje, Travunija and Paganija was probably completed, because the emperor's informant collected data from his surroundings and transferred to Constantinople the tribal sense of belonging of the inhabitants of these archons.'{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  13. ↑ Živković, Tibor (2012). De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source. Belgrade: The Institute of History. pp. 161–162, 181–196.
  14. ↑ Budak, Neven (1994). Prva stoljeća Hrvatske (PDF). Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada. pp. 58–61. ISBN 953-169-032-4. Glavnu poteškoću uočavanju etničke raznolikosti Slavena duž jadranske obale činilo je tumačenje Konstantina Porfirogeneta, po kojemu su Neretvani (Pagani), Zahumljani, Travunjani i Konavljani porijeklom Srbi. Pri tome je car dosljedno izostavljao Dukljane iz ove srpske zajednice naroda. Čini se, međutim, očitim da car ne želi govoriti ο stvarnoj etničkoj povezanosti, već da su mu pred očima politički odnosi u trenutku kada je pisao djelo, odnosno iz vremena kada su za nj prikupljani podaci u Dalmaciji. Opis se svakako odnosi na vrijeme kada je srpski knez Časlav proširio svoju vlast i na susjedne sklavinije, pored navedenih još i na Bosnu. Zajedno sa širenjem političke prevlasti, širilo se i etničko ime, što u potpunosti odgovara našim predodžbama ο podudarnosti etničkog i političkog nazivlja. Upravo zbog toga car ne ubraja Dukljane u Srbe, niti se srpsko ime u Duklji/Zeti udomaćilo prije 12. stoljeća. Povjesničari koji su bez imalo zadrške Dukljane pripisivali Srbima, pozivali su se na Konstantina, mada im on nije za takve teze davao baš nikakve argumente, navodeći Dukljane isključivo pod njihovim vlastitim etnonimom.
  15. ↑ Gračanin, Hrvoje (2008), "Od Hrvata pak koji su stigli u Dalmaciju odvojio se jedan dio i zavladao Ilirikom i Panonijom: Razmatranja uz DAI c. 30, 75-78", Povijest U Nastavi (in Croatian), VI (11): 67–76, Ukratko, car je rekao ili da se dio Hrvata odselio iz Dalmacije i, naselivši se u Panoniji i Iliriku, zavladao ondje ili da su Hrvati / član hrvatske elite preuzeli vlast u tim područjima, a da doseobe nije bilo. Odgovor nude arheološko-antropološka istraživanja. Kraniometrijske analize provedene na kosturnim ostacima iz grobišta od jadranskog priobalja do duboko u unutrašnjost upućuju na zaključak da su se populacije koje se smatraju starohrvatskima postupno širile u zaleđe sve do južne Panonije tek u vrijeme od 10. do 13. stoljeća.26 Dalmatinskohrvatske populacije jasno se razlikuju od kasnijih kontinentalnih populacija iz Vukovara i Bijelog Brda, dok populacije s lokaliteta Gomjenica kod Prijedora, koji je na temelju arheološke građe svrstan u bjelobrdski kulturni kompleks, ulaze već u skupinu dalmatinsko-hrvatskih populacija.27 Polagan prodor hrvatskog utjecaja prema sjeveru dodatno potkrepljuju i nalazi nakita iz tog vremena,28 koji svjedoče o neposrednijim vezama između dalmatinsko-hrvatskog i južnopanonsko-slavenskog kulturnog kruga. Izneseni nalazi navode na zaključak da se Hrvati nisu uopće naselili u južnoj Panoniji tijekom izvorne seobe sa sjevera na jug, iako je moguće da su pojedine manje skupine zaostale na tom području utopivši se naposljetku u premoćnoj množini ostalih doseljenih slavenskih populacija. Širenje starohrvatskih populacija s juga na sjever pripada vremenu od 10. stoljeća nadalje i povezano je s izmijenjenim političkim prilikama, jačanjem i širenjem rane hrvatske države. Na temelju svega ovoga mnogo je vjerojatnije da etnonim "Hrvati" i doseoba skrivaju činjenicu o prijenosu političke vlasti, što znači da je car političko vrhovništvo poistovjetio s etničkom nazočnošću. Točno takav pristup je primijenio pretvarajući Zahumljane, Travunjane i Neretljane u Srbe (DAI, c. 33, 8-9, 34, 4-7, 36, 5-7).
  16. ↑ Budak, Neven (2018), Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100. [Croatian history from 550 until 1100], Leykam international, pp. 51, 177, ISBN 978-953-340-061-7, Sporovi hrvatske i srpske historiografije oko etničkoga karaktera sklavinija između Cetine i Drača bespredmetni su, jer transponiraju suvremene kategorije etniciteta u rani srednji vijek u kojem se identitet shvaćao drukčije. Osim toga, opstojnost većine sklavinija, a pogotovo Duklje (Zete) govori i u prilog ustrajanju na vlastitom identitetu kojim su se njihove elite razlikovale od onih susjednih ... Međutim, nakon nekog vremena (možda poslije unutarnjih sukoba u Hrvatskoj) promijenio je svoj položaj i prihvatio vrhovništvo srpskog vladara jer Konstantin tvrdi da su Zahumljani (kao i Neretvani i Travunjani) bili Srbi od vremena onog arhonta koji je Srbe, za vrijeme Heraklija, doveo u njihovu novu domovinu. Ta tvrdnja, naravno, nema veze sa stvarnošću 7. st., ali govori o političkim odnosima u Konstantinovo vrijeme.
  17. ↑ Novaković, Relja (2010) [1981]. "Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka: Zaključak i rezime monografije" [Where was located Serbia from VII until XII century: Conclusion and summary of the monograph]. Rastko (in Serbian). Beograd: Narodna knjiga i Istorijski institut. Pisac ove knjige već sada smatra da ima izvesnih znakova iz kojih se može naslutiti da prvobitno slovensko stanovništvo Duklje (Zete), Bosne i Raške nije bilo istog porekla kao i slovensko stanovništvo u Porfirogenitovoj "sadašnjoj" odnosno "pokrštenoj Srbiji". Ono je moglo biti veoma srodno, ali ne i identično. Činjenica je da taj najraniji i najmerodavniji izvor o poreklu stanovnika Duklje, Bosne i Raške ne kaže ništa, mada o njima piše četiri veka po doseljenju tih Slovena u te svoje tadašnje zemlje. To šo se u kasnijoj istoriji u ovim oblastima spominju Srbi, ne mora bezuslovno da znači da su njihovi prvobitni slovenski stanovnici istog porekla kao i oni u primorskim srpskim zemljama i u "sadašnjoj Srbiji ("pokrštenoj Srbiji"). Ime Srbije i Srba moglo se proširiti širenjem Srbije kao države. Zbog toga moramo ostati rezervisani sve dok ne saznamo nešto pouzdanije.
  18. ↑ Fine, 1991, p. 53
  19. ↑ Banac, Ivo (1988). The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics. Cornell University Press. p. 35. ISBN 0-8014-9493-1.
  20. ↑ Ćirković, Sima (2020). Živeti sa istorijom. Belgrade: Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji. p. 307.
  21. ↑ Fine (2006, pp. 62–3, footnote 103)
  22. ↑ Dvornik et al. 1962, p. 142.
  23. 1 2 Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. pp. 404–408, 424–425, 444. ISBN 978-0-19-974163-2.
  24. ↑ Fine, 1991, p. 57
  25. ↑ Fine (2006, p. 2)
  26. ↑ Whittow (1996, p. 263) "The Croats and Serbs have also been seen as rebels who broke away from the Avars to set up their own states in the 620s with the blessing of Emperor Heraklios. But the only evidence is an anachronistic story preserved in De Administrando Imperio which seems to have been invented in the late 9th or early 10th century to give historical precedent to current Byzantine policies."
  27. ↑ Fine, 2005, p. 31
  28. ↑ Hupchik, 2002, p. 54: "Jovan Vladimir, who ruled a renewed Serb state centered on Zeta (present-day Montenegro)"
  29. ↑ The New Cambridge Medieval History, IV. 1024– 1198. Part II. Page 136. "In 1018 when Basil II conquered Bulgaria a number of Serbian principalities also fell under Byzantine rule. These included Raska.., Duklja.., Tribenje..., Zahumlje.., and Bosnia"
  30. ↑ Stephenson, 2003, pp. 42–43: "Ljutovid's claim to be strategos not only of Zahumlje, but all Serbia suggests that he had been courted by the Emperor and awarded nominal rights over neighboring lands, including Duklja"
  31. ↑ "Slavyane v rannem srednevekovie" Valentin V. Sedov, Archaeological institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1995, p. (in Russian)
  32. ↑ Fine, 1991, p. 37
  33. ↑ Malcolm 1995, p. 10-11.
  34. ↑ Fine, 2006, p. 35, "a people who occupy a large part of Dalmatia"
  35. ↑ Serbian Studies. Vol. 2–3. North American Society for Serbian Studies. 1982. p. 29. ...the Serbs, a people that is said to hold a large part of Dalmatia
  36. ↑ Dutton, Paul Edward (1993). Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Broadview Press. p. 181. ISBN 9781551110035. ...who are said to hold a great part of Dalmatia
  37. ↑ Djokić, Dejan (2023). A Concise History of Serbia. Cambridge University Press. p. 61. ISBN 9781107028388. 'a people that is said to hold a large part of Dalmatia'. This was a reference to the ancient Roman province of Dalmatia, which extended deep into the western Balkan interior, from the eastern Adriatic coast to the valleys of the Ibar and Sava Rivers.
  38. ↑ Fine
  39. ↑ John V. A. Fine. The early Medieval Balkans.
  40. ↑ The early medieval Balkans, p. 148
  41. 1 2 Fine, 1991, p. 149
  42. ↑ Fine, 1991, p. 150
  43. ↑ Fine, 1991, p. 141
  44. ↑ The early medieval Balkans, p. 160
  45. ↑ The entry of the Slavs into Christendom, p. 209
  46. ↑ Ostrogorsky 1956, pp. 273–5.
  47. 1 2 Fine
  48. 1 2 Hupchik, p.
  49. ↑ Kekaumenos, ed Litavrin, 170–2
  50. 1 2 Fine, p. 202
  51. 1 2 Fine, 1991, pp. 203, 206–207
  52. ↑ Ostrogorski, Georgije; Barišić, Franjo, eds. (1966). Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije. Vol. 3. Beograd: Vizantološki institut.
  53. 1 2 3 4 5 Fine, 1991, p. 223
  54. ↑ Markovic 2016, p. 167.
  55. ↑ Fine 1991, p. 202: "Duklja—a region inhabited by Serbs"
  56. ↑ David Luscombe; Jonathan Riley-Smith (14 October 2004). The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 4, C.1024-c.1198. Cambridge University Press. pp. 266–. ISBN 978-0-521-41411-1. Serbian principalities ... Duklja, or Dioclea
  57. ↑ Sedlar 1994, p. 21: "In the 11th century, the most important Serbian political units were Duklja..."
  58. ↑ Velikonja 2003, p. 44: "Byzantium and Bulgaria scrambled for control over the Serbian principalities of Duklja, Rascia and Zahumlje."
  59. ↑ Cedrenus, ed. Bonn, II, p. 526
  60. ↑ Scylitzes, 408-9
  61. ↑ Georgius (Cedrenus.); Jacques Paul Migne (1864). Synopsis historiōn. Migne. p. 338. Τριβαλλών και Σέρβων
  62. ↑ Skylitzes 475.13-14
  63. ↑ Mikhail Voĭnov, ed. (1969). Documents and Materials on the History of the Bulgarian People. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. p. 37.
  64. 1 2 Bryenii, Nicephori; Zonarae, Ioannes (1968). Fontes graeci historiae bulgaricae. Vol. VII. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. p. 115, 202.

Sources

Primary sources
Secondary sources

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.