Zachlumia is a derivative of Hum, from Proto-Slavic *xŭlmŭ, borrowed from a Germanic language (cf. Proto-Germanic *hulma-), meaning "Hill".[1] South Slavic Zahumlje is named after the mountain of Hum (za + Hum "behind the Hum"), above Bona, at the mouth of the Buna.[citation needed] The principality is named Zahumlje or Hum in Serbo-Croatian (Serbian Cyrillic: Захумље, Хум). It is Zachlumia in Latin, Хлъмъ in Old Church Slavonic, and Ζαχλούμων χώρα ("land of Zachlumians") in Greek. The names Chelmania, Chulmia and terra de Chelmo appear in later Latin and Italian chronicles.
De Administrando Imperio described the polity of Zachlumia as: "From Ragusa begins the domain of the Zachlumi (Ζαχλοῦμοι) and stretches along as far as the river Orontius: and on the side of the coast it is neighbour to the Pagani, but on the side of the mountain country it is neighbour to the Croats on the north and to Serbia at the front ... Those who live there now, Zachlumi, are Serbs, from the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the Emperor Heraclius. In the territory of the Zachlumi are the inhabited cities of Stagnon, Mokriskik, Iosli, Galoumainik, Dobriskik".[2]
Slavs invaded Balkans during Justinian I (r. 527–565), when eventually up to 100,000 Slavs raided Thessalonica. The Western Balkans was settled with Sclaveni (Sklavenoi), the east with Antes.[3] The Sklavenoi plundered Thrace in 545, and again the next year. In 551, the Slavs crossed Niš initially headed for Thessalonica, but ended up in Dalmatia.[4] In 577 some 100,000 Slavs poured into Thrace and Illyricum, pillaging cities and settling down.[5] Hum had also a large number of Vlachs who were descendent from a pre-Slavic population. Related to Romanians and originally speaking a language related to Romanian, the Vlachs of what was Hum are today Slavic speaking.[6]
In the second decade of the 7th century, the Avars and their Slavic subjects occupied most of the Byzantine province of Dalmatia, including the territory of what would become Zahumlje, sacking towns and enslaving or displacing the local population. Some of the Slavs and Avars might have permanently settled in the occupied areas. They attacked Constantinople in 626 but were defeated by the Byzantines, after which the Avars ceased to play a significant role in the Balkans.[7]
Around 630, during the reign of Byzantine EmperorHeraclius, Serbs and Croats (Slavic tribes) led by their respective aristocracies entered the western Balkans from the north, which was approved by the emperor. They inhabited areas that had been devastated by the Avars, where Byzantium (East Roman Empire) had generally been reduced to only nominal rule. According to DAI, Zahumlje was one of the regions settled by the Serbs from an area near Thessaloniki who previously arrived there from White Serbia,[8] but a closer reading of the source suggests that the Constantine VII's consideration about the population's ethnic identity is based on Serbian political rule and influence during the time of Časlav of Serbia and does not indicate ethnic origin.[9][10][11][12][13][14] 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 Zachlumia.[15] According to Tibor Živković the area of the Vistula where the Litziki ancestors of Michael of Zahumlje originate was the place where White Croats would be expected and not White Serbs,[16] and it's unclear whether the Zachlumians "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".[17] According to Francis Dvornik the Zachlumians "had a closer bond of interest with the Croats than with the Serbs, since they seem to have migrated to their new home not with the Serbs, but with the Croats".[18] Michael's tribal origin is related to the oral tradition from Historia Salonitana by Thomas the Archdeacon about seven or eight tribes of nobles called Lingones who arrived from Poland and settled in Croatia.[19][20][21][22] Much of Dalmatia was sometime earlier settled by the Croats, and Zahumlje bordered their territory on the north.[23] According to Thomas the Archdeacon, when describing the reign of Croatian king Stephen Držislav in the late 10th century, notes that Duchy of Hum (Zachlumia or Chulmie) was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia, before and after Stjepan Držislav:
"Istaque fuerunt regni eorum confinia: ab oriente Delmina, ubi fuit civitas Delmis, ... ab occidente Carinthia, versus mare usque ad oppidum Stridonis, quod nunc est confinium Dalmatie et Ystrie; ab aquilone vero a ripa Danubii usque ad mare Dalmaticum cum tota Maronia et Chulmie ducatu."
"The boundaries of that kingdom were as follows. To the east: Delmina. ... To the west: Carinthia, towards the sea up to the town of Stridon, which now marks the boundary between Dalmatia and Istria. To the north, moreover: from the banks of the Danube down to the Dalmatian sea, including all of Maronia and the Duchy of Hum."
Slavic principalities in ca. 814 AD.Slavic principalities in ca. 850 AD.
Charlemagne, King of the Franks from 768 until his death in 814, expanded the Frankish kingdom into an empire (800) that incorporated much of western and central Europe.[25] He brought the Frankish state face to face with the West Slavs to the northeast and the Avars and South Slavs to the southeast of the Frankish empire.[25] Dalmatia which was southeast of the Frankish empire, was chiefly in the hands of South Slavic tribes.[26] North of Dubrovnik these came to be under Croatian župans (princes) and eventually came to consider themselves Croatians, while many of those to the south of Dubrovnik were coming to consider themselves Serbs.[26] Despite Frankish overlordship, the Franks had almost no role in Dalmatia (Dalmatian Croatia and Zahumlje) in the period from the 820s through 840s.[27]
In 866, a major Arab raid along Dalmatia struck Budva and Kotor, and then laid siege to Dubrovnik in 867.[27] The city of Dubrovnik appealed to Byzantine EmperorBasil the Macedonian, who responded by sending over one hundred ships.[27] Finally, the 866–867 Saracens' siege of Dubrovnik, which lasted fifteen months, was raised due to the intervention of Basil I, who sent a fleet under the command of Niketas Oryphas in relief of the city.[28] After this successful intervention, the Byzantine navy sailed along the coast collecting promises of loyalty to the empire from the Dalmatian cities.[27] At this moment the local Slavic tribes (in Zahumlje, Travunija, and Konavle), who had aided the intervention, also accepted Byzantine suzerainty.[27] Afterwards, the Slavs of Dalmatia and Zahumlje took part in the Byzantine military actions against the Arabs in Bari in 870–871.[27] The Roman cities in Dalmatia had long been pillaged by the Slavic tribes in the mountaines around them.[27] Basil I allowed the towns to pay tribute to the Slavic tribes to reduce the Slavs raiding.[27] Presumably a large portion of this tribute went to the prince of Dalmatian Croatia.[27] In late 870s, the theme of Dalmatia ("thema Dalmatias") was established, but with no real Byzantine authority.[29] These small cities in the region (also Dyrrachium) did not stretch into the hinterlands, and had none military capacity, thus Basil I paid a tax of '72 gold coins' to the princes of Zahumlje and Travunia.[29]
In 879, the Pope asked for help from duke Zdeslav Trpimirović for an armed escort for his delegates across southern Dalmatia and Zahumlje. Later in 880, the Pope ask the same from Zdeslav's successor, prince Branimir.[citation needed]
The history of Zahumlje as a greater political entity starts with the emerging of Michael of Zahumlje, an independent South Slavic ruler who flourished in the early part of the 10th century. A neighbour of Croatian Kingdom and Principality of Serbia as well as an ally of Bulgaria, he was nevertheless able to maintain independent rule throughout at least a good part of his reign.[10]
Michael have come into territorial conflict with the neighbouring prince Peter Gojniković, the ruler of inner Serbia, who was extending his power westwards.[30][31] To eliminate that threat and as a close ally of Bulgaria, Michael warned the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I about the alliance between Peter and Symeon's enemy, the Byzantine Empire.[30] In 912 Michael kidnapped the Venetian Doge's son Peter Badoari that was returning to Venice from Constantinople and sent him to Czar Simeon as a sign of loyalty. Symeon attacked inner Serbia and captured Peter, who later died in prison, and Michael was able to restore the majority of control.[32]
The Historia Salonitana maior, whose composition may have begun in the late 13th century,[33] cites a letter of Pope John X to Tomislav, "king (rex) of the Croats", in which he refers to the first council in some detail. If the letter is authentic, it shows that the council was attended not only by the bishops of Croatian and Byzantine Dalmatia, but also by Tomislav, whose territory also included the Byzantine cities of Dalmatia, and by a number of Michael's representatives. Zahumlje may have been under Croatian influence, but remained a separate political entity. Both Zahumlje and Croatia were under the religious jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Split. In this letter, John describes Michael as "the most excellent leader of the Zachlumi" (excellentissimus dux Chulmorum),[34][35] and is mentioned the Ston bishopric (ecclesia Stagnensis) which jurisdiction remained under Split until 1022.[36] It is uncertain whether the inscription and depiction of a Slavic ruler in the Church of St. Michael in Ston is a reference to Michael of Zahumlje, the 12th century Mihailo I of Duklja or St. Michael himself.[37]
After the Italian city of Siponto (Latin: Sipontum) was heavily jeopardized by the raiding Arabs and Langobards, Mihailo won a magnificent military victory by taking the city upon the recommendations from Constantinople and orders from his ally, King Tomislav Trpimirovic, but didn't keep it permanently.[38] Mihailo Višević entered into closer relations with the Byzantine Empire, after the death of Bulgaria's Tsar Simeon. He gained the grand titles of the Byzantine court as anthypatos and patrician (patrikios).[32] He remained as ruler of Zahumlje into the 940s, while maintaining good relations with the Papacy.[39]
Post-Michael of Zahumlje period
After the death of Michael (after c. 930s or 940s), the fate of Zahumlje is uncertain due to lack of historical sources about it.[40] Some historians believe that Zahumlje came under the rule of prince Časlav of Serbia, but there's no evidence for it and DAI which was written in the mid-10th century clearly states that Zachlumia is a separate polity from Serbia.[40] The 13th century Thomas the Archdeacon claimed that the Croatian kingdom included Zachlumia before and after Stephen Držislav (969–997), but that's also disputable.[40]
In the late 990s, Bulgarian Tsar Samuel made client states out of most of the Balkans, including Duklja and Zahumlje.[41][42] In 998, Samuel launched a major campaign against Jovan Vladimir to prevent a Byzantine-Serbian alliance, resulting in a surrender.[43] The Bulgarian troops proceeded to pass through Dalmatia, taking control of Kotor and journeying to Dubrovnik. Although they failed to take Dubrovnik, they devastated the surrounding villages. The Bulgarian army then attacked Croatia in support of the rebel princes Krešimir III and Gojslav and advanced northwest as far as Split, Trogir and Zadar, then northeast through Bosnia and Raška and returned to Bulgaria.[43][42]
11th century
By 1020, Byzantine Emperor Basil I expanded control in the whole region, but the Byzantines used local elite to rule over local polities although under Byzantine vassalage and supervision of Byzantine officials.[44] In the Pope Benedict VIII's bull from 27 September 1022 is mentioned Zahumlje kingdom (regno Lachomis), and would be again in the bull of Pope Gregory VII from 1076 (as regno Zaculmi), which confirmed the jurisdiction of the archdiocese of Dubrovnik.[44]
In a charter dated July 1039, Ljutovid of Zahumlje who was an independent Slavic ruler of Zahumlje, styled himself "Ljutovit, protospatharios epi tou Chrysotriklinou, hypatos, strategos" of Serbia and Zahumlje. According to historian Paul Stephenson, it "suggests that he had been courted by the emperor, and awarded nominal rights neighbouring lands, including Duklja, which was at the time at war with the empire.[45]
According to historical sources, the Serbian lands were under Byzantine control or vassalage until 1040s, but not under a direct control.[45]Vojislav of Duklja (fl. 1018–1043) soon took Zahumlje from the Byzantines.[46] During the rule of Constantine Bodin (r. 1081–1101), neither Bosnia, Serbia nor Zahumlje was ever integrated into Doclea, each retained its own nobility and institutions and simply acquired a Vojislavljević to head the local structure as Prince or Duke.[47] Zahumlje subsequently became part of the Grand Principality of Serbia.
12th century
Zahumlje in 1190 as a lower part of Kingdom of Hungary
Kočapar, the Prince of Duklja (r. 1102–1103), ruled in the name of Vukan I of Serbia. There was a split between the two, and Vukan sent forces to Duklja, making Kočapar flee to Bosnia and then Zahumlje, where he died.[48]Zavida ruled Zahumlje before getting into a conflict with his brothers, resulting in him being exiled to Duklja, where he would have the title of Lord of Ribnica.[49]Grand PrincesDesa (r. 1148–1162) and Uroš II Prvoslav ruled Serbia together 1149–1153; Desa had the title of 'Prince of Duklja, Travunija and Zahumlje', mentioned in 1150 and 1151.[citation needed]
About 1150, the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos displeased with king Radoslav of Duklja, divided up his lands between princes of the old Serbian family of Zavida, and Stefan Nemanja secured the land of Hum.[50] After 1168 when Nemanja was raised to the Serbian throne with Manuel's favor, Hum passed to his brother Miroslav.[50] He married a sister of Ban Kulin, who in meantime acquired the throne of Bosnia.[50] The subjects of Miroslav and Kulin included both Catholic and Orthodox.[50] Prince Miroslav himself was Orthodox.[51] In meantime, both Bosnia and Hum had been fought between Kingdom of Hungary and Byzantine Empire.[50] The Catholics supported the former and the Orthodox the latter.[50] A support of the growing heresy seemed the best solution for both Kulin and Miroslav.[50]
Following the death of Emperor Manuel in 1180 Miroslav started ecclesiastical superior of Hum.[52] He refused to allow Rainer, Latin Archbishop of Spalato (Split) whom he considered to be an agent of Hungarian king, to consecrate a bishop for the town of Ston.[52] In addition, Miroslav confiscated the Archbishop's money.[52] Rainer complained to the Pope Alexander III, who sent Teobald to report on the matter.[52] The Pope's nuncio Teobald found Miroslav as a patron of heretics.[52] After this, the Pope wrote to king Béla III of Hungary who was overlord of Hum (which Miroslav did not recognize), telling him to see that Miroslav performed his duty, but Miroslav remained as Prince of Hum.[52] In 1190–1192, Stefan Nemanja briefly assigned the rule of Hum to his son Rastko Nemanjić, while Miroslav held the Lim region with Bijelo Polje.[53] Rastko however took monastic vows and Miroslav continued ruling Hum after 1192.[53]
Latin vengeance came in March 1198, when Andrew II of Hungary become the prince of Dalmatia, Croatia and Hum, while Miroslav died a year after and his wife was living in exile.[52] The Miroslav Gospels are the oldest surviving documents written in Serbian recension of Old Church Slavonic, very likely produced for the Church of St Peter in Lima, commissioned by prince Miroslav.[54]
Andrija Mirosavljević is entitled the rule of Hum, but the Hum nobility chose his brother Petar. Andrija is exiled to Rascia, to the court of his cousin Grand Prince Stefan Nemanjić. In the meantime, Petar fought successfully with neighbouring Bosnia and Croatia. Stefan Nemanjić sided with Andrija and went to war and secured Hum and Popovo field for Andrija sometime after his accession. Petar was defeated and crossed the Neretva, continuing to rule the west and north of the Neretva, which had around 1205 been briefly occupied by Andrew II of Hungary.[56][57] Toljen II, the son of Toljen Mirosavljević, succeeded as prince, ruling 1227–1237. Andrija's sons Bogdan, Radoslav and George succeed as princes of Hum in 1249, Radoslav held the supreme rule. During the war against Ragusa, he aided his kinsman Stephen Uroš I of Serbia, at the same time swearing allegiance to Béla IV of Hungary. Following an earthquake in the Hum capital of Ston, the Serbian Orthodox bishop of Hum moved to the church of St Peter and St Paul built on the Lim River near the Serbian border in the 1250s.[56]
Radoslav of Zahumlje was from 1254 a vassal of Hungary, but probably afterwards his land were absorbed into Serbia.[58] However, he was at war with Serbia in 1268, while still under Hungarian suzerainty.[59] But seeking to centralize his realm, Stephen Uroš I of Serbia tried to stamp out regional differences by dropping references to Zahumlje (Hum), Trebinje and Duklja (Zeta), and called himself "King of all Serbian land and the Coast".[59] Miroslav's descendants dropped to the level of other local nobles.[59]
Paul I Šubić of Bribir as Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia controlled Croatia from Gvozd Mountain to the river Neretva mouth.[60] Paul became Lord of all of Bosnia in 1299.[61] Although supporting the king, Paul continued to act independently, and ruled over a large portion of modern-day Croatia and Bosnia.[61] In the course of the war between Stephen Uroš II Milutin and Stephen Dragutin, Paul Šubić expanded not only into western Hum, but also beyond the Neretva river, and took the region of Nevesinje and Ston.[29] Paul appointed his eldest son, Mladen II, as Lord of Hum.[62] At least part of Paul's conquests were granted to his vassal Constantine Nelipčić.[29] Mladen succeeded his father in 1312. After Paul's death, Milutin and Dragutin concluded a peace, and went to war against the Šubić family.[29] In the war that followed Milutin took one of Mladen's brother captive, and to get him back Mladen Šubić had to agree to restore a part of Hum to Milutin.[29] After this agreement in 1313 the Neretva again became the border between eastern and western Hum.[29]
By 1325, the Branivojević family had emerged as strongest in Hum.[63] Probably at their highest point they ruled from Cetina River to the town of Kotor.[63] Though nominal vassals of Serbia, the Branivojević family attacked Serbian interests and other local nobles of Hum, who in 1326 turned against Serbia and Branivojević family.[63] The Hum nobles approached to Stjepan Kotromanić II, the ban of Bosnia, who then annexed most of Hum.[63] The Draživojevići of Nevesinje as vassals of Bosnian Ban, become the leading family of Hum in the 1330s.[64] Because of the war in 1327-1328 between Serbia and Dubrovnik, Bosnian lordship of inner Hum and the war in Macedonia, Stephen Uroš IV Dušan sold Ston and Pelješac to Dubrovnik, and turned to the east to acquire all of Macedonia.[64]
The region was overwhelmed by the House of Kotromanić from Bosnia in 1322–1326. By the mid-14th century, Bosnia apparently reached a peak under Ban Tvrtko I who came into power in 1353.[citation needed]
In the beginning of the 15th century, Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić ruled over the western Hum, and Sandalj Hranić Kosača ruled over its eastern part, while the Neretva river remain a border between their possessions.[65]
The territory on the right bank of the Lower Neretva was at the time controlled by Kosača vassals, a local clan and magnates of Radivojević–Jurjević–Vlatković.[66]
Bosnian regional lord Stjepan Vukčić Kosača ruled over Zahumlje, or Humska zemlja as it was called at this point. In 1448 he assumed the title herzog and styled himself Herzog of Hum and the Coast, Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Drina, and the rest,[67][68] and since 1450, Herzog of Saint Sava, Lord of Hum, Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Drina, and the rest.[69] This "Saint Sava" part of the title had considerable public relations value, because Sava's relics were consider miracle-working by people of all Christian faiths.[69] Stjepan's title will prompt the Ottomans to start calling Humska zemlja by using using the possessive form of the noun Herceg, Herceg's land(s) (Herzegovina), which remains a long-lasting legacy in the name of Bosnia and Herzegovina to this day.[70][67][71]
In 1451 he attacked Dubrovnik, and laid siege to the city.[72] He had earlier been made a Ragusan nobleman and, consequently, the Ragusan government now proclaimed him a traitor.[72] A reward of 15,000 ducats, a palace in Dubrovnik worth 2,000 ducats, and an annual income of 300 ducats was offered to anyone who would kill him, along with the promise of hereditary Ragusan nobility which also helped hold this promise to whoever did the deed.[72] Stjepan was so scared by the threat that he finally raised the siege.[72]
In contrast to Bosnia, where Roman Catholicism and Bosnian Church were firmly established, eastern parts of Hum was mostly Orthodox, from 13th century and the rise of Nemanjići.[75] In the 14th- and 15th centuries, there was an influx of settlers from the župa of Trebinje, around forts Klobuk, Ledenica and Rudina, and the Hum lands around Gacko and Dabar, to Kotor. The people from Hum were mostly girls from Gacko, who took up working as servants to wealthy families.[76]
Stjepan Vukčić Kosača (1435–1466) was Serbian noble. In 1448. changed his title from "Vojvode of Bosnia" into "Herceg [Duke] of Hum and the Coast", and from 1449 into "Herceg of Saint Sava" .
^Entry "холм" in М. Фасмер (1986), Этимологический Словарь Русского Языка (Москва: Прогресс), 2-е изд. — Перевод с немецкого и дополнения О.Н. Трубачёва.
^Dvornik et al. 1962, pp. 139, 142: 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 day... It is obvious that the small retinue of the Serbian prince could not have populated Serbia, Zachlumia, Terbounia and Narenta.
^ abCurta 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.
^Živković 2006, p. 60–61:Data on the family origin of Mihailo Višević indicate that his family did not belong to a Serbian or Croatian tribe, but to another Slavic tribe who lived along the Vistula River and who joined the Serbs during the migration during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. The introduction of Mihajlo Višević and his family by Porphyrogenitus suggests that the rulers of Zahumlje until his time belonged to this ruling family, so that, both in Serbia and Croatia, and in Zahumlje, there would be a very early established principle of inheriting power by members of one family. 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 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 ... The Byzantine writings on the De Ceremoniis, which were also written under the patronage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, listed the imperial orders to the surrounding peoples. The writings cite orders from the archons of Croats, Serbs, Zahumljani, Kanalites, Travunians, Duklja and Moravia. The above-mentioned orders may have originated at the earliest during the reign of Emperor Theophilus (829 - 842) and represent the earliest evidence of the political fragmentation of the South Slavic principalities, that is, they confirm their very early formation. It is not known when Zahumlje was formed as a separate principality. All the news that Constantine Porphyrogenitus provides about this area agrees that it has always been so - that is, since the seventh-century settlement in the time of Emperor Heraclius. It is most probable that the prefects in the coastal principalities recognized the supreme authority of the Serbian ruler from the very beginning, but that they aspired to become independent, which took place according to the list of orders preserved in the book De Ceremoniis, no later than the first half of the 9th century. A falsified and highly controversial papal charter from 743 also mentions Zahumlje and Travunija as separate areas. If the basic information about these countries were correct, it would mean that they formed as very early principalities that were practically independent of the archon of Serbia.
^Budak, Neven (1994). Prva stoljeća Hrvatske(PDF). Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada. pp. 58–61. ISBN953-169-032-4. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2019-05-04. Retrieved 2019-05-04. 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.
^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, 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).
^Budak, Neven (2018), Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100. [Croatian history from 550 until 1100], Leykam international, pp. 51, 177, ISBN978-953-340-061-7, archived from the original on 2022-10-03, retrieved 2020-12-27, 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.
^Živković, Tibor (2001). "О северним границама Србије у раном средњем веку" [On the northern borders of Serbia in the early middle ages]. Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju (in Serbian). 63/64: 11. Plemena u Zahumlju, Paganiji, Travuniji i Konavlima Porfirogenit naziva Srbima,28 razdvajajuči pritom njihovo političko od etničkog bića.29 Ovakvo tumačenje verovatno nije najsrećnije jer za Mihaila Viševića, kneza Zahumljana, kaže da je poreklom sa Visle od roda Licika,30 a ta je reka isuviše daleko od oblasti Belih Srba i gde bi pre trebalo očekivati Bele Hrvate. To je prva indicija koja ukazuje da je srpsko pleme možda bilo na čelu većeg saveza slovenskih plemena koja su sa njim i pod vrhovnim vodstvom srpskog arhonta došla na Balkansko poluostrvo.
^Dvornik et al. 1962, p. 139: Even if we reject Gruber's theory, supported by Manojlović (ibid., XLIX), that Zachlumje actually became a part of Croatia, it should be emphasized that the Zachlumians had a closer bond of interest with the Croats than with the Serbs, since they seem to have migrated to their new home not, as C. says (33/8-9), with the Serbs, but with the Croats; see below, on 33/18-19 ... If this is so, we must regard the dynasty of Zachlumje and at any rate part of its people as neither Croat nor Serb, It seems more probable that Michael’s ancestor, together with his tribe, joined the Croats when they moved south; and settled on the Adriatic coast and the Narenta, leaving the Croats to push on into Dalmatia proper.
^Uzelac, Aleksandar (2018). "Prince Michael of Zahumlje – a Serbian ally of Tsar Simeon". In Angel Nikolov; Nikolay Kanev (eds.). Emperor Symeon's Bulgaria in the History of Europe's South-East: 1100 years from the Battle of Achelous. Sofia: Univerzitetsvo izdatelstvo "Sveti Kliment Ohridski". p. 237. ...the enigmatic Litziki were associated with the archaic names of Poles(Lendizi, Liakhy),7 or with the Slavic tribe of Lingones mentioned by chronicler Adam of Bremen.8 Be that as it may, it is certain that, although his subjects were perceived as Serbs, the family of Prince Michael of Zahumlje did not descend from Serbs or Croats, and was not related to their dynasties.
^Lončar, Milenko; Jurić, Teuta Serreqi (2018). "Tamno more u spisu De administrando imperio: Baltičko ili Crno?" [The Dark Sea in De administrando imperio: The Baltic or the Black Sea?]. Povijesni prilozi (in Croatian). 37 (54): 14. Kao potporna analogija može poslužiti i podrijetlo Mihaela Viševića, vladara Zahumljana s područja Visle.21 Teško da je netko drugi (osim njega samoga i njegova roda) iznosio takvu obavijest. Ista hrvatska tradicija, ponešto izmijenjena, zadržala se u Dalmaciji sve do 13. stoljeća kada ju spominje Toma Arhiđakon: "Iz krajeva Poljske došlo je s Totilom sedam ili osam uglednih plemena, koji se zovu Lingoni."2
^Fine 2005, pp. 54–55: "John the Deacon [...] makes no mention of either council", "manuscript from the 16th century Historia Salonitana maior has long descriptions of the two councils" and "the labels of identity [...] represent views from no earlier than the late 13th century, and possibly the 14th, 15th and 16th"
^ ab"Ranokršćanske i predromaničke crkve u Stonu" [Early Christian and pre-romanesque churches in Ston] (PDF). Građevinar (in Serbo-Croatian). 58. Zagreb: Croatian Society of Civil Engineers: 757–766. 2006. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2011-02-18.
Dvornik, F.; Jenkins, R. J. H.; Lewis, B.; Moravcsik, Gy.; Obolensky, D.; Runciman, S. (1962). P. J. H. Jenkins (ed.). De Administrando Imperio: Volume II. Commentary. University of London: The Athlone Press.
Karbić, Damir (2004). "Šubići Bribirski do gubitka nasljedne banske časti (1322.)" [The Šubići of Bribir until the Loss of the Hereditary Position of the Croatian Ban (1322)]. Historical Contributions (in Croatian). 22. Zagreb, Croatia: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts: 1–26.
Ross, James Bruce (1945). "Two Neglected Paladins of Charlemagne: Erich of Friuli and Gerold of Bavaria". Speculum. 20 (2): 212–235. doi:10.2307/2854596. JSTOR2854596. S2CID163300685.
