Duklja (Greek: , Diokleia; Latin: Dioclea; Serbian Cyrillic?) was a medieval Serb[a] state which roughly encompassed the territories of present-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 Mora?a rivers in the north. First mentioned in 10th- and 11th century Byzantine chronicles, it was a vassal 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 Vojislavljevi? dynasty. Between 1043 and 1080, under Mihailo Vojislavljevi? (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 (the core of the earlier Serbian Principality, known as Ra?ka) 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 Ra?ka, 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 Vojislavljevi? 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 Vukanovi? dynasty, subsequently known as Zeta, remaining so until the fall of the Serbian Empire in the 14th century.
In historiography, K. Jirechek was the first to use "Duklja".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. 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", ). The demonym, or tribal name, appearing in De Administrando Imperio was "Diokl?tianoi" ().
According to De Administrando Imperio (948-952), in chapter 35, Diokleia () included the "large, inhabited cities" of Gradetai, Nougrade, and Lontodokla. Gradetai may have been Starigrad, Nougrade may have been Prevlaka, while the location of Lontodokla is uncertain.
According to the later, somewhat dubious 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 (Lu?ka), Podlugiae (Podlu?je), Gorsca (Gorska), Cupelnich (Kupelnik), Obliquus (Oblik), Prapratna, Cermeniza (Crmnica) and Budua (Budva) with Cuceva (Ku?evo) and Gripuli (Grbalj).
Since the 12th century, the term Zeta began to replace the name Duklja.
According to the 10th-century De Administrando Imperio (DAI), written by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, a second migration of Slavs into the Balkans occurred during the reign of Heraclius (r. 610-640). DAI mentions Croats and Serbs having settled the Western Balkans, the Serbs having founded "baptized Serbia" (known erroneously in historiography as Ra?ka) which included the land of Bosna. The other presumably Serb-inhabited lands (or principalities) that were mentioned in the DAI included the maritime Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and Kanalites, while maritime Duklja was held by the Byzantines (it was presumably settled with Serbs as well). All of the maritime lands bordered Serbia to the north.
The DAI has been a widely used source in reconstructing the earliest histories of the South Slavic states. 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. While he clearly states that the neighboring principalities of Serbia, Zahumlje, Travunia, and Pagania had been settled by the 'unbaptized Serbs', he mentions Duklja simply as having been settled by 'Slavs'. John V.A. Fine argues "given that Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably this would have also been a Serb region".
Scholars have debated at length as to the reliability of such sources. For example, 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 ?upanijas were under the authority of the Serbian prince, ?aslav Klonimirovi?, in the mid-10th century.Tibor ?ivkovi? and Neven Budak also considered that a closer reading suggests that the Constantine consideration about the regions population ethnic identity is based on Serbian political rule and does not indicate ethnic origin.Ivo Banac proposed that the DAI mention that a part of the Croats "split off and took control of Illyricum and Pannonia" after settling Northern Dalmatia could be connected to Duklja. The dubious Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, compiled in 1298-1301 by a Cistercian monk in the service of Paul I ?ubi? of Bribir, refers to Croats in Southern Dalmatia (see Red Croatia). If this is not mere Byzantine confusion over Serbs and Croats, it might allude to the existence of minor Croat tribes until the late 12th century.
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. 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. 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.
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, 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. 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". 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. Duklja is seen as one of the medieval Serb states and was the political and cultural predecessor of modern Montenegro.
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 ?upa, (roughly, a county) ruled by local families.
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). 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.Prince Vi?eslav (fl. 768-814), the first known Serbian monarch by name, ruled the hereditary lands (?upanias, "counties") of Neretva, Tara, Piva, Lim. He managed to unite several more provinces and tribes into what would become the Serbian Principality. Vi?eslav was succeeded by his son Radoslav and then Prosigoj, during which time "the Serbs inhabit the greater part of Dalmatia" (Royal Frankish Annals, 822). 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. Prince Petar Gojnikovi? defeated Ti?emir of Bosnia, annexing the valley of Bosna. He then expanded along the Neretva, annexing the Narentines, where he seems to have come into conflict with Michael Vi?evi?, a Bulgarian ally and the ruler of Zahumlje (with Trebinje and most of what would later be Duklja). Michael Vi?evi? heard of the possible alliance between Serbia and the Byzantines, and warned Symeon. Symeon defeats Petar and in the following years there is a power struggle between the Bulgars and Byzantines over Serbian overlordship. Prince ?aslav ruled over a confederacy of tribes covering an expansive area. He took over regions previously held by Michael, who disappears from sources in 925. According to some sources, ?aslav's 'state' was based from the hinterland of Kotor.
After ?aslav died in ca. 960, Rascia (the hinterland) was annexed by the Byzantines, and Serbia dissolved into several principalities, and the mentions of the first dynasty end. 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. In the 11th century, Jovan Vladimir ruled Duklja, with his court centered in Bar on the Adriatic coast; he held much of the "Serbian maritime" 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[disambiguation needed], Macedonia, Serbia, Ra?ka and Epirus. In retaliation, Samuel invaded Duklja in 1009, 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. 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.
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". 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.
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", led the "Serbs who renounced Byzantine rule". According to the CPD, he was a nephew of Vladimir. In 1034, he took "Duklja" while the Byzantines were switching thrones. 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.
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 ?upan of Bosnia, Knez (Prince) Ljutovid of Zachlumia and the ?upan 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. 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.
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.
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 ?upans. 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.
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, Sva?, Skadar, Drivast, Pula, Ras, Bosnia and Trebinje. 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. The Bar Archbishopric's new territory were merely theoretical - the pope's edict could only affect the churches that recognized Rome. 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. 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.
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 Ko?opar, one of Branislav's exiled brothers to capture the throne. He managed to get assistance from Vukan of Ra?ka, and together they beat Dobroslav. However, there was a falling out between Ko?opar and Vukan. Vukan drove out Ko?opar, 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 ?ura? (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 ?ura? and imprisoned Jaquinta. Grube?a, one of Branislav's sons, was placed on the throne in 1118. He ruled peacefully until 1125. ?ura? had fled to Rascia, and secured the support of the new Rascian Grand ?upan, Uro?, believed to be the nephew of Vukan. Uro? was aligned with the Hungarians, and was anti-Byzantine. He invaded Duklja and placed ?ura? back on the throne. Yet another Byzantine intervention ousted ?ura? for the second time, capturing him, and he died in captivity. Gradinja, one of Grube?a'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.
The principality then came under the rule of the Nemanji? dynasty, through the branch of Vukan Nemanji? 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.
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 ...
... of Dioclea (or in Croatian Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina), a text of somewhat dubious value as a historical source
. ,, ? ? , ? , , , , 0?, , ?, ? (Cuceva) ? ." ? ,") ? ?
Glavnu pote?ko?u uo?avanju etni?ke raznolikosti Slavena du? jadranske obale ?inilo je tuma?enje 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. ?ini se, me?utim, o?itim da car ne ?eli govoriti ? stvarnoj etni?koj povezanosti, ve? da su mu pred o?ima politi?ki 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 ?aslav pro?irio svoju vlast i na susjedne sklavinije, pored navedenih jo? i na Bosnu. Zajedno sa ?irenjem politi?ke prevlasti, ?irilo se i etni?ko ime, ?to u potpunosti odgovara na?im predod?bama ? podudarnosti etni?kog i politi?kog nazivlja. Upravo zbog toga car ne ubraja Dukljane u Srbe, niti se srpsko ime u Duklji/Zeti udoma?ilo prije 12. stolje?a. Povjesni?ari koji su bez imalo zadr?ke Dukljane pripisivali Srbima, pozivali su se na Konstantina, mada im on nije za takve teze davao ba? nikakve argumente, navode?i Dukljane isklju?ivo pod njihovim vlastitim etnonimom.
Serbian principalities ... Duklja, or Dioclea