UDC 94(497.

16 Duklja)4/11
94(497.11)

: ,
, :
, .
.
,
,
.
: , , , , ,
, , , ,
.

j
, .
,
:
,
, , ,
.

.1 ,
,

. ,
,
: , , .
,
, , ,
.
, ,
.
1 . . , I, 2000, 12;
. , , , . 13, 2001, 49.

8

, .

,
.
,
.
,
, .
,2
, , , ,
.3
, ,

. , ,
. ,
VIII IX ,
.
,
. : 4
2 , ,
, . ,
, , , 614
616. . : I, 1955, 186,
187 ( : ).
,
VIII .
773. ,
, , , ( I, 233).
VIII , ,
.
799. ( I, 235).
.
, ( I, 186, 187).

, , .
(674677) ( I, 204).
3
(Strimona) Rihios.
VII
( ) ( I, 200210).
, .

(rex), .
(rex, ) ,
, VII ,
, .
4 ,
. ,
, VII : ,
//,
// ( II, 64)

9
, 5 , 6
7
.
, ,
(, , ,
), (),
(, ).8
X
, , ()
.9
X XI .
, , .

1016. . II
, 1018. .10

5 , VII
: , :
,
( II 59). .
.
.
, .
6 .
VII : ,
( II, 61, 62).
canallis.
7 ,
VII : ...,
( II, 63).
, , ,
, . VII
, ,
, , , , ( II,
63).
, ,
, ,
XI , . 1217.
8 , . , 1967, 316332.
9 ,
(). : II, 78.
(610641). VIII
IX X : , , 830. 850.
. ,
, , .
IX .
,
( II, 62) ,
. () ( II,
60). 912.
930. . : . , . 1996, 4043.
10 I, 171, 175.

10
,
1034, 1036. .11

. , , ,
1038.
, ,
.12
: , (
) , .
,
.
,
: .13
,
. ,
, .14

, ,
,
.15 ,
(),
, , ,
.16

,
.17 ,
, , ,
.

,
: () .
30 ,
.18

, ,
XI ,
. (1076),
11 III, 156. (
III, 156 . 243).
12 III, 157. I, 182 (. ).
13 III, 161. I, 183, 184.
14 III, 162. I, 186.
15 ,

( III, 212, 213. I, 186.
16 . 4, 5. 6.
17 III 210, 212. I, 182.
18 , . , 318346.

11
,
, .19
, , ,

. XI
, ,
.20
XII
. I
(11431180), ,
.21
, , :
(Radoslaus knesius)
,
. (knesius Radoslaus), ,
, , .22

, I,
.
, .
1150, 1151. .23
, ,
,
.
,
,
.
, .24
, I ,
,
. . ,
1166. (19. ):

(), (dux) (Dioclie)
19 VII , 1077.
( I, 189).
. ,
III, 1089. ,
, ,
( I, 195).
20 III, 383390. I, 197200 (. - ).
21 . , II, 12 (1970) 2139.
22 , . . .
, 1996, 105, 147. , . , 402405.
II (11181143). : . ,
I, 140, . 102.
23 . , , 41 (2004) 300 (=
, 2004, 29).
24 . , .., 300, 301 (= , 30, 31).

12
,
, .25
, , (comes) ,
.
(dux) ,
, ,
I . ,
: XII
, .26

.
,
,
.

,
I , .

. , ,
,
.
,
, .
,
.27
1189. ,
.
, ,
1186, .28
,
, 1183. 1190. .
,
.
, ,
.
,
25
26

65.

, 157, 158.
. , , 1972,

27 . , I, 1952, 153; . ,
, 41, 301 (= , 31)
28 I, 252, 253.
1186. , : In nomine
eterni Dei et Salvator is nostri Jesu Christi. Anno milesimo centesimo oct uagesimo sexto, mense
ianuar io, tempore domini nostri Nemanne iupani Rasse.
,
,
. : , 159.

13
, ,
.

(1198), . ,
,
, :
,
, ,
, , , , , , .29

, ,
, ,
.
, .
,
. , ,
: ,
, ,
, ,
: , , ,
, , , , .30
, ,
, .
.31

.
,
, ,
29 . , . , . ,
, , 1986, 54, 56, 58 (:
).
, , . ,
, . .
: acquirere reper ir i ( II,
433). . , . , . ,
( , 58).
. , , ,
( , ,
. . , 1986, 31).
, - ,
( , , : . -
, . . , 1988, 55).
,
reperiri, . ,
: , .
30 . , ,
. . 2, , 1939, 31, 32 (: );
, , 73.
31 .

14
.32
, ,

, .33
, I ,
, ,
. ,
, .

,34
,
,
.35
,
(), ()
, ,
.
,
, .
,

, .
32
1018. ,
II. , , ,
1042. , ( III, 212).
, , .
, , ,
( I, 192). XII
, II , . :
, , , , , , , ,
. , (1215),
: , ( ,
93).
33 . 29. ,
, () (
III, 212). 1075. 1078. .
34 .
. .
, (),
,
, ( , ,
100, 101). ,
(. ,
, X , , . 14 (2008) 140.
, .
35 . , , 19962 , 569.
dedina, , (-
, . , 2000, 187). ,
,
, .

15
,
, .
6
,
, ,
, , 1185. .
,
.
, ,
.36
1185. 1189.
, .

, .37
1189. ,
, ,
, 1189.
, .38
,
.
, (1196)
.39
,
, .
1190, 1195. :
, , , , ,
, ,
.40
, ,
. ,

. , , (),
() , .
,
,
().
36
( , , 109, 117).
37 M. , ,
, . III (1955) 6971, 88. . , ,
56 (1997) 4562 (= , 120).
38 . , , 1926, 4, 5. .
, , 301.
39 . , , , 1940, 6873; .
, , 912.
40 . (1195)
: sub tempore domini Nemane magni iupani et filii sui Velcani regi Dioclie, Dalma
tie, Tribunie, Toplize et Cosne. ( , 160, 161).

16
,
1197. 1200. .
1197. : Sub tempore domini
nostri Velcanni, Dioclie, Dalmatie, Tribunie atque Toplize incliti regis.41

, ,
, ,
.
, ,

1199. 1200. .
,42
, ,
.43 ,
,
,
. .
, , 1201.
Lauro Zan, :
...
.44 1201.
,
() , casus beli.
.
, 1202.
.
,
, 1204. 1205.
.45 ,
,
, ,
.
, . ,
, , ,
,
, .46
41 . , XII ,
I, , 1997, 19.
42 1199. : sub tempore reg is Velcann i et com it i
civitatis Desimir (. , ,
II, 20).
43 1200. : sub tempore dom in i nostri reg is
Velcanni, et comitat um regente apud nos Desimir us eius famulus (. ,
1200. , 37 (1990) 203; ,162)
44 . , , 15.
45 I, 268270.
46 , . , , 1970, 4, 5, 1518.

17

.

, , ,
.
1208.
.47 ,
,
1217.
(1219). O
, ,
, ,
, .
.48 , ,
,
, , ,
,
.
, .
,
, 1237.
. :
, , ,
, .49
, , .50
, ,
.51
1248. ,
.52 ,
.
,
,
.53
, ,
I.


, . ,
. ., 812.
. , , 1985,
1733, 127138, 163170.
49 . , , 71, 8994.
50 : . ,
, 1997, 20012, 1730.
51 , . , , 22.
52 . , , 305.
53 . , , 20022.
47
48

18
,
,
.54
,
,
, , 1250. 1253.
. , ,
.55
, , ,
.
.
,
1190. 1253. ,
, ,
,
.
, ,
.
XIII , I
, .56
I .
(1276)
. ,
(12761282), , , , ,
.57
,
.
, 1276. 1308. .
, .
: ,
, , .
, , , , ,
, ,
.
.

, ,
.
54 . , , 1934, 38, 49, 58;
. . , , 1975, 136, 137, . 57 58; . .
, . , . , , 1990, 138 . 82, XXV; .
, . , 1988, 172.
,
.
, .
55 . , , 306, 307.
56 , , , , 1214.
57 , 4659.

19

,

, .58
. ,
1314. .
1308. ,
,
. ,
, :
, , .59
, , ,
,
.
,
.
. ,
(1314), ,
.60 ,
(1318),
1321. .61

(13211331),
,
.62 .
, , , ,
, : ,
,
, ,
. ,
,
,
. , ,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
58 , , , 2005.
59 , . , , 60.
60 I, 462464.
61 . , , 250, 251; ,

, 310.
62 , . , , 6673.

20
.
,
.63
.

.64 ,
, ,
, ,
, .
,
, ,
, ,
.65

.
, ,
, .
, ,
,
. , ,

, .66
,
(1355)
, .
,
, .
,
,
.
,
,
, .
,
1360. , ,
.67 ,
, .

,
.
, 72.
. , , 117119; . ,
, 24, 25.
65 . , , 46, 48, 49,
52; , , 310312.
66 , . , , 75.
67 , . , , 1970, 68.
63
64

21

. 1371. ,
, , 1373.
, .68 , ,

.

. III (1421),
, ,
, .

.
, , , ,
.69 ,
,
, ,
.70

. , ,
,
.71
.
,
,
1455. .72
(14651490)
, , ,
.73
.
2.000 .
, ,
, ,
: .74
, , , , ,
, , ,
.75
,
68 , 2933.
, .
69 , . , , 137150.
70 , 149; . , , 1994,
6870.
71 . , ,
2(1975) 524.
72 , . , , 223232, 277.
73 , 287296, 322326.
74 . . , I, 299.
75 , 300, 301.

22
,
. ,

1485. .
( ),
.76 , ,
(14901496),
, .77

,
.78
XVI , :
, , ,
.79 ,

,
.
,
, , ,
.

,
,
.
I (11431180)
,
, ,
.
,
. ,
, ,
. ,
(1496),
.
, . , , 329332, 489. 77.
, 397410.
, 1376.
. : . , I,
1935, 396: E se questa nostra lettera te trovassy in Centa de qua de Cernagora.
, ,
. , ,
1435. (Cat uni Cernagore),
, . : . ,
, X/1 (1968) 245249 (=
XV , 1979, 150155); . , ,
, 1999, 5777.
79 . , IV, 1923, 59,
. 6308.
76
77
78

23
,
.

.
,
, ,
,
.
,
, ,
, .

The Nemanjies and the Statehood

of Duklja and Zeta, Montenegro
by
Milo Blagojevi
Summary
In the teritory of present Montenegro, in the period from the 10th to the 21st century,
there existed three states with different names: Duklja, maybe Duklja and Dalmatia, then
Zeta and at the end Montenegro. The names of these states were derived from geographical
names, not from the name of the Serbian nation who createad them. Duklja or Dioclitia was
named after the antique city Duklja (Docles), and Zeta after the river of the same name and
the river valley, while the oldest Montenegro represented a mountainous region within Zeta
which rose above Risan, Kotor and Budva. The original Duklja represented a small state
which at the end of the 10th century fell into the vassal position to the Bulgarian empire.
When the Byzantine emperor Basil II conquered Bulgaria in 1018, he subdued Duklja, too,
as well as other Serbian countries. The Serbs started the uprising against Byzantium, so
Prince Stefan Vojislav in 1037 restored the Serbian state with its centre in Duklja, to which
Travunia (Trebinje) and Zahumlje were added. The territory of the restored state was at
least three times larger than the original Duklja, so it experienced a fast political progress.
The ruler of that state, Prince Mihailo, got the dignity of the king from the Pope, and some
what later the bishop in Bar was raised to the rank of archbishop in 1089. These were the
most visible factors of statehood in the territory of Duklja, Trebinje and Zahumlje.
After a fast progress, there followed even a faster fall, already at the beginning of the
12th century. When the emperor Manuel I Comnenus (11431180) came to the Byzantine
throne, all Serbian lands were under his supreme rule. The coastal cities of Duklja with their
surrounding areas were within the Byzantine administrative unit theme Dalmatia
(Upper) and Dioclitia, headed by the emperors governor who had the title of dux. The re
gions inside the country were still governed by the rulers from the old Dukljanian dynasty,
as the vassals of the Byzantine emperor; however, they did not bear the title of the Byzan
tine king anymore, but the great prince.
The Serbian grand duke Stefan Nemanja liberated Duklja and Dalmatia from the Byz
antine occupation in 1185, considering this area an integral part of the Serbian state and his
grandfathers inalianable estate. The Serbian grand duke did not change the existing so
cial relations, the existing order, institutions, church organization, not even the borders ex

24
isting in the time of the last Duklja rulers. He gave the territory covered by the old historical
areas: Dioclitia, Dalmatia and Travunia (Trebinje) to his son Vukan, to rule that area as a
participating prince. Vukan was also officially given the title of great prince, borne by
the last rulers of Duklja. The great prince Vukan, and later his sons Dordje and Stefan, also
with the titles of the great prince, ruled their participative princedom from 1190 to 1253. All
the three great princes which succeeded one another in the natural order, enjoyed great and
broad authority. They had their army, their nobility (aristocracy), specific administrative
apparatus, they gathered state income, maintained diplomatic relations with the popes and
foreign rulers, recognizing at the same time the supreme rule of the Serbian grand duke,
and later king. It all strenghened and fastened the existing factors of statehood in the terri
tory of the former Duklja state, which more and more frequently started to be called Zeta.
The statehood was even more strengthened with the foundation of the Orthodox Zeta dio
cese in 1220, which by its spiritual jurisdiction set the borders of Zeta, and by its church or
ganization covered the entire area. In the mid13th century, the participative princedoms in
the Nemanjies state were abolished, but this attempt at centralization soon fell through.
The Serbian king Dragutin (12761282) gave Zeta and Trebinje to his mother Queen Helen,
who ruled her region as a true ruler from 1276 to 1308. After the withdrawal of Queen
Helen, Zeta was entrusted to the potential heirs of the Serbian throne, that is to the young
kings, first Stefan Duan (13211331), the future Serbian king and emperor (13311355).
The presence of the young kings in Zeta, as well as their aristocracy, army and local ad
ministration, continually strengthened all elements of statehood in Zeta.
When the Serbian Empire began to disintegrate, Zeta was among the first to gain in
dependence, already in 1360 headed by the Balies, which is at the same time a proof that
the statehood of Zeta was kept and preserved in the long period of the rule of the Nemanji
dynasty. The independent Zeta persevered in the period between 1360 and 1421, but it was
continually weakening and losing some areas due to the attacks of great neighbours, prima
rily the Turks and the Venetians. The last ruler of Zeta, Bala III Bali, remaining without
male heirs and seriously ill, ceded Zeta to his uncle, the titulatory despot Stefan Lazarevi,
the ruler of the Serbian state at the time. According to the established custom, despot Stefan
gave Zeta to his future heir, young master Djuradj Brankovi. When Djuradj Brankovi
became the ruler of Serbia, he entrusted the ruling of Zeta to his governors. In the mid
1450s, Serbia faced a deep crisis and neared its fall, so the aristocratic family Crnojevi
gained independence in Zeta. Duke Ivan Crnojevi moved his court to Cetinje, to Montene
gro, so he also built a monastery in Cetinje as the new seat of the Zeta metropolitanate. Ivan
Crnojevi and his son, the duke and master Djuradj Crnojevi carefully preserved and cher
ished all institutions which had existed at the age of the Nemanjies, and these are very im
portant factors of the Serbian statehood. With the movement of the seat of the Zeta metro
politanate and the court of the Crnojevices to Cetinje, the new nation-building core was
formed, in the area which was known under the name of Montenegro. When in 1496 even
the last part of Zeta fell under the Turkish rule, in Cetinje and Montenegro there still re
mained and functioned the Zeta metropolitanate which enjoyed great respect and reputation
within the Serbian Orthodox Church. It was the best guardian of the ecclesiastical, as well as
political heritage from the time of the Nemanjies, and particularly of some factors of state
hood which were preserved in the territory of the Zeta diocese. Thanks to the presence and
long-lasting activity of the Serbian Orthodox metropolitanate in Cetinje, after a long time and
with great sacrifices of the people, the Serbian state was restored in one part of old Zeta, in
Montenegro, so the present state of Montenegro was named after the name of that region.