Archeologia e Calcolatori

Supplemento 11, 2019, 39-53

HISTORICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL SURVEY

OF INSCRIPTIONS FROM DOCLEA

1.  From the 1890s to the period between the two World Wars
Since 1890, when the systematic archaeological research of Doclea
started, some 140 inscriptions had been recorded from the site and its vi-
cinity. Today only 40 survive. They are mainly located at the site and in the
archaeological depot of the Museum and Galleries of Podgorica (Martinovic
2011, 125-148). Due to the inability to provide adequate protection by the
relevant institutions, a large number of inscriptions have disappeared or have
been destroyed by the local population and irresponsible researchers. Certain
inscriptions mentioned in documentation from the archaeological excavations
in Doclea, kept at the Administration for the Protection of Cultural Properties
in Cetinje, are still not published. There are photographs of several inscrip-
tions whose present location is unknown: the authors of this paper were not
able to find them all.
The interest in inscriptions from Doclea is actually older than any sys-
tematic research of the site. Since the mid-19th century, several writers have
documented them in their works (Neugebauer 1851, 73-74; Denton 1877,
72; Knight 1880, 190; Markov 2005, 389-393). The great progress made in
epigraphy in the second half of the 19th century also influenced the scientific
interest in Doclea. In 1873, Theodor Mommsen included several inscriptions
from Doclea in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. This epigraphic material
was provided by Valtazar Bogišic, who, during his long and systematic research
into the legal past of Montenegro, also showed an interest in its epigraphic
and numismatic heritage (Koprivica 2018, forthcoming).
In October 1881, after the Montenegrin separation from the Ottoman
Empire, a mission from the French government arrived, comprised of Lieu-
tenants Saski and Ansac (Vujovic 1971, 314-315). French officers also visited
Doclea. Lieutenant Saski made drawings of several inscriptions, published a
year later by Robert Mowat (Mowat 1882; Saski 1882).
During the first systematic research at Doclea, carried out in 1890-1892,
some previously unknown inscriptions were found among the remains of the
newly discovered forum, basilica, thermae, Temples I and II (temple of Dea
Roma and temple of Diana). The director of the research, A.P. Rovinski, re-
corded and later published these inscriptions (Rovinski 1890, 12; 1891, 19-21;
1909, 36-39, 55-59). Due to his modest knowledge of Latin epigraphy, some
of the inscriptions were not read properly. Inscriptions found at this period
were of great importance for understanding the history of Doclea, especially

39
T. Koprivica, O. Pelcer-Vujacic

those on architraves found in the forum, referring to Marcus Flavius Fronto

(CIL III 12695, CIL III 12692, cfr. CIL 13819, CIL III 13820).
These first investigations prompted don Frano Bulic, director of the
Archaeological Museum in Split, to send Vid Petricevic to Montenegro to
report on the excavation results. Petricevic visited Doclea in April 1890. His
report included copies of several inscriptions that he published the same year
(Petricevic 1890a, 1890b).
Piero Sticotti, the most prominent researcher of Doclea, arrived with
Luka Jelic in Cetinje in September 1892. Their mission was part of a wider
research in Montenegro and Albania, which was conducted at the request
of the Directorate of the Archaeological and Epigraphic Seminar of the Uni-
versity of Vienna. Sticotti and Jelic read, copied and made drawings of the
inscriptions at the site and in its immediate vicinity (Koprivica 2017, 61).
The texts they found at Doclea were readily incorporated into the supplement
of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum III (Sticotti 1908, 52). During this
mission, as well as in the next two that Sticotti carried out in 1902 and 1907,
68 inscriptions from Doclea and its immediate environs were documented
and analysed (Sticotti 1913, 155-183).
In September 1892, Paul Nicod was also in Montenegro by the order of
the French Ministry of Education. The inscriptions he had collected in Doclea
on that occasion were published a year later by René Cagnat (Cagnat 1893).
From 1893, the British Archaeological Mission, led by J.A.R. Munro, made
great progress in understanding the sacred topography of Doclea (Koprivica
2013). Munro published, together with F.J. Haverfield, the epigraphic material
discovered during this mission. These inscriptions, together with the previously
known ones (74), were published in the research report (Munro et al. 1896,
31-57). The most important finding was the ex voto inscription of deaconess
Ausonia, not preserved today (Munro et al. 1896, 42-43; Šekularac 1994,
19-20; Koprivica 2013, 10; Sanader 2013). Some of the inscriptions found
in churches (Basilica A, Basilica B and the Cruciform church) are spolia from
the Roman period. At the end of their mission, the British researchers also
made some of the inscriptions from Doclea and its vicinity available for
publication in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Koprivica 2013, 2).
In 1893, Ljuba Kovacevic, a professor at Belgrade Higher School, copied
four inscriptions from the site, three unknown and the fourth one that had
been erroneously transmitted by Cagnat. Kovacevic later gave these inscrip-
tions to Professor Josip Brunšmid for publishing (Brunšmid 1901, 87-88).
During his stay in Montenegro in October 1901, the Italian archaeol-
ogist Roberto Paribeni was primarily focused on the inscribed monuments
(Burzanovic, Koprivica 2011, 222-223). The texts found in Doclea and
Tuzi were published in 1903 (Paribeni 1903). Archaeologist Dante Vaglieri,
a member of the multidisciplinary scientific mission led by Antonio Baldacci

40
 Historical and epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea

in 1902 (Baldacci 1991), published only three, previously unknown, in-

scriptions. One of them, an altar, is dedicated to the deity Ananka, especially
venerated in Greece (Vaglieri 1904; Šašel Kos 2013).
The period of the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and the World War I (1914-
1918) was not favourable for any scientific research. However, since in Jan-
uary 1916 Montenegro was occupied by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, C.
Praschniker and A. Schober were able to conduct some research in Doclea.
Their study of the site was limited to terrain mapping and the finding of some,
previously unpublished inscriptions (Praschniker, Schober 1919, 1-3).
In the period between the two World Wars, scientific interest in Doclea
almost ceased. No scientific mission was organized, nor was any presence of
foreign or Yugoslav researchers documented in Doclea. Nevertheless, Antun
Mayer (Mayer 1928-1929) and Nikola Vulic (Vulic 1931, 124-125; Vulic
1933, 64) made a significant contribution to the research of the inscriptions
from Doclea during this phase.

2.  From World War II until today

After World War II, interest in the inscriptions from Doclea was prompted
by finds made during systematic excavations throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
Most notably, three inscriptions were published by A. Cermanovic-Kuz-
manovic, O. Velimirovic-Žižic and D. Srejovic (1975). The outstanding
work of Jaro and Ana Šašel resulted in the gathering of all available data on
the inscriptions from this region (Šašel 1963-1986). In 2011, The Corpus of
Latin and Greek inscriptions from Montenegro was published (Martinovic
2011). However, this corpus has certain methodological failings. The part
on the inscriptions from Doclea was actually taken from the unpublished
catalogue of the former curator of the Podgorica Museums and Galleries,
the late Milan Pravilovic (Martinovic 2011, 9-10). One can observe that
many inscriptions have been misplaced and are not represented well. Some
new finds were published as individual articles, such as the votive inscription
for Neptune (Vucinic 2007; Grbic 2009); passing epigraphic remarks were
made by Bakovic (2011, 24, photo n. 2), Sanader (2013), Koprivica (2013,
10), Pelcer-Vujacic (2014) and Živanovic (2014, 35-38).
In the recent years, during the excavation campaigns in 2009 and 2010,
several well preserved funerary inscriptions have been found, as shown
during the presentation at the Round Table on Doclea held in Podgorica in
December 2013. Unfortunately they are still not published or available for
scholarly research.
The project for the digitalization of ancient inscriptions from Montenegro
was started by the Historical Institute with Olga Pelcer-Vujacic as the project
coordinator in 2014. We established collaborations and data-sharing with

41
T. Koprivica, O. Pelcer-Vujacic

Fig. 1 – Epigraphica Montenegrina website homepage.

Fig. 2 – Some of the photos shown in the Images Gallery.

42
 Historical and epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea

both the EAGLE project (https://www.eagle-network.eu/) and Trismegistos

(https://www.trismegistos.org/). One of the main points in this collaboration
was the sharing of images and their presentation on Wikimedia Commons,
especially as many inscriptions from this region are still checked from CIL
drawings. In creating the website, we chose to follow the principles of the
Linked Open Data approach, using structured data and so enabling the con-
nection of the digital library to others resources. At first we envisioned this
as a searchable database, but it was soon realized that we should first make a
digital corpus that uses TEI-XML mark-up, according to the EpiDoc schema
and with further quality assistance from EAGLE project members.
In 2016, from the database we produced a webpage: http://www.epi-
graphicamontenegrina.me/ (Figs. 1-2). Our own Epigraphica Montenegrina
database contains about 350 ancient Latin inscriptions from Montenegro,
including the ones from Doclea (Fig. 3). Currently as a simple browsing
website, it includes texts, ancient and modern locations, as well as photos
and translations. Not all metadata is yet present on the website, but collab-
oration with European databases and projects should enable this feature to
appear soon.

3.  Some examples of inscriptions found in the second half of the

20th century
Some inscriptions found during the second half of the 20th century were
known only through documents of the relevant institutions involved in their
recovery; these fragments are scattered in several places.
3.1  Inscription 1
The photo of this inscription (Fig. 4) was presented in a paper by Bakovic
without any reading being offered, being described as «fragment of stone
sculpture» (Bakovic 2011, 24, photo n. 2). It was found during the campaigns
of 2009 and 2010 and is connected with a possible discovery of the central,
Capitoline Temple of Roman Doclea (Bakovic 2011, 15). The stone is bro-
ken on all four sides, its dimensions currently unknown. Letters are distinct,
although the letter L has a very short lower hasta. The text is as following:
FULGU
DIVV
Fulgu[r]
divu[m]
This short text refers to the lightning of Jupiter, god of light and diur-
nal lightning (as opposed to that of Summanus, deity of lightning at night

43
T. Koprivica, O. Pelcer-Vujacic

Fig. 3 – Screenshot of Epigraphica Montenegrina database, with an inscription

from Doclea (http://www.epigraphicamontenegrina.me/martinovic-cilgmonte-
negri-109/).

– Summanum or Summani fulgur), whose epigraphic evidence is much less

prominent (CIL VI 206, 30879, 30880). However, it seems necessary to
make a distinction between the lightning from the cult of Summanus and,
in particular, that from the cult of Jupiter, a complex god who cannot be re-
duced to this single function of a hurler of lightning. For example, in Gallia
Narbonensis the cult of lightning was a phenomenon essentially venerated in

44
 Historical and epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea

Fig. 4 – Photo from Bakovic 2011, 26.

the countryside, which is perfectly logical, since rural dwellers have always
been much more sensitive than urban ones to atmospheric phenomena. The
event is also perceived in the Roman civilization as a source of life, since it
brings the beneficial rain, the source of abundance and agricultural wealth
in Mediterranean region (Rémy, Buisson 1992, 85).
This new inscription testifies to a worship given to the lightning, just one
manifestation of the divine power, perhaps on the very spot where a bolt had
struck the ground that thereby became a sacred place. In this form, without
the participle conditum, Jupiter’s bolt is attested in Rome (CIL VI 205, 30714,
30878; Gasperini 1982, 23-28), Ostia (CIL XIV, 4294), Britannia (CIL VII,
561) and more frequently in various forms in Gallia Narbonensis. The worship
of this divine power was previously unattested in Dalmatia.
3.2  Inscription 2
The inscription is fragmented, with its current dimensions measuring
20×16×5 cm (Fig. 5). There are 5 lines, whose letters’ dimensions are 2 to 3
cm, being both shallow and worn. It was first published in 2011 (Martinovic
2011, 140 n. 127), later revised by Pelcer-Vujacic in 2014 (Pelcer-Vujacic
2014, 92-93, n. 2). Today it is kept in a depot of the Museums and Galleries of
Podgorica. Paleographically, this inscription could be dated to the 1st century
AD., although there are examples for a later date (Petrovic 1975, 108-121).
_ _ _ERIA
_ _ _SIMA
_ _ _RILLA
_ _ _ULTAN.
_ _ _TIT P S
_ _ _T

45
T. Koprivica, O. Pelcer-Vujacic

Fig. 5 – Inscription 2.

[D(is) M(anibus)| . . . |. . . Val]eria|[matri pientis]sima|[e . . . . . .Vale]rilla| [. .

. m]ult(os) an[n(os)| bene vixit] tit(ulum) p(o)s(uit)
Other reconstructions of the name of the deceased are also possible, but
less probable. Aprilla: Narona (CIL III 1844), Asseria (CIL III 2852) and
Salona (CIL III 6551) or Surilla: Prijepolje (AE 1980, 699) and Hvar (CIL
III 3084); Kajanto 1965, 325; Alföldy 1969, 154, 303.
The question as to whether another part of the inscription exists, as
given by Martinovic in a drawing, still remains unanswered. It is not certain
whether they are even connected; we believe that the other part belongs to
a completely different inscription. From the photos, one can tell that both
the stone and the letters of the second are completely at odds with the first.
Previously believed to be lost, the original piece was located in the depot at
the site of Doclea in October 2017.
The text of the fragmented epitaph is:
INO
RAT
XT XX
VS . PATR
and we suggest the following reading:
]INO[
[f]rat[ri]
[vi]x(i)t XX
]us patr[ibus pientissimi]

46
 Historical and epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea

Fig. 6 – Drawing by Martinovic 2011, 147..

3.3  Inscription 3
Inscription from the top of a small sarcophagus (Fig. 6), double moulded,
with the inscription field measuring 34×36 cm. Letters are of various sizes
and straight, without ligatures.
Text taken from the original archaeological notes:
DMS
F L MELAN
TONIUS BLAN
DEVXO PI FECIT
QVAE VIXIT AN XXXV
POS
In 2011, as published by Martinovic 2011, 147, n. 141:
D(is) M(anibus) S(acrum)
Fl(avius) Meli-
tonius Blan-
de uxo(ri) pi(entissimae) fecit
quae (vi)xit an(nos) XXX
pos(uit)
Today only the lower right part of the inscription is held at the site of Do-
clea. At present, we are not able to check the differences between the original
notes and Martinovic’s edition. The Latin cognomen Blandus is attested all
over the whole empire, especially in the Celtic provinces (Lorinz 1994, 302).
In the province of Dalmatia, however, there are only three instances: ILJug
888 (Iader), CIL III 8786 (Salona) and this one. These cognomina belong to

47
T. Koprivica, O. Pelcer-Vujacic

Fig. 7 – Inscription 4.

Fig. 8 – Second part of the inscription.

the so-called «laudatory cognomina«, meaning here agreeable or sweet (from

some scholars’ points of view, see Kajanto 1965, 282; Alföldy 1969, 165).
3.4  Inscription 4
The left part of the inscription is known from a photo taken by Koprivica
in 2011, from the documentation of the Administration for the Protection of
Cultural Properties in Cetinje (Fig. 7). It is a double moulded plaque. It seems

48
 Historical and epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea

that the text corresponds with the upper right part of the original inscription,
also photographed by Koprivica in 2011 (Fig. 8). Letters are with ligatures,
shallow and worn. If the two pieces correspond, the suggested reconstruction
of the joint text could be:
D [M]
FLAVIA N
DR I
In the outer moulding:
MEREN[TI] POSUIT
Q
VA
E
V
IXIT
ANN
E
D(is) [Manibus]
Flavia N[… ]
[bene] merenti posuit
quae vixit
ann(os)
…e…
This funerary inscription features an Imperial cognomen, very frequent
in Doclea. Most members of the elite bear the family name Flavius and belong
to the Flavian tribus Quirina, indicating that an extensive grant of citizenship
was made to the upper classes on the founding of the city (Alföldy 1965,
145,182; Wilkes 1969, 260).
3.5  Inscription 5
Fragment located at the depot at the site of Doclea in October 2017. It
has capital letters, beautifully carved, with those of the first line slightly bigger:
SVO
FECIT
suo /fecit
The remaining words are usually the two last words found in a funerary
inscription.

49
T. Koprivica, O. Pelcer-Vujacic

4.  Conclusions
Apart from the veneration of Jupiter’s bolt, all other inscriptions are
simple funerary ones without any decoration, commemorating the deceased
and their age, as well as the feeling of loss in the family. Most of the mentioned
names here are of Latin origin, but in Doclea several Illyrian names are attested,
such as cognomen Pinnia (CIL III 12696: Flavia Pinnia; Rendic-Miocevic
1948, 9; Katicic 1962, 106-107), Anna (CIL III 14600: Cassia Anna) and
Tatta (ILJug 1830: Epidia Tatta), and this can be interpreted as evidence of
the retention of a strong ethnic identity. Furthermore, the nomen gentilicium
Pletorius is also attested (CIL III 14602: L. Pletorius Valens; Alföldy 1969,
109; ILJug 1848: Plaetoria Iulia).
Nevertheless, one should not take funerary monuments as evidence
that a given person had just one fixed identity (Graham 2009, 52-53). A
Latin name recorded for an individual from a Roman province is not suffi-
cient to prove Roman identity, either ethnic or cultural, nor is it proof of a
certain level of competence in Latin (Gavrielatos 2017, 142). The native
elite adopted Roman material culture and ways of living as a response to
the changing political realities, and these changes then filtered through the
society as a result of the emulation of the elites by the non-elites (Millet
1990, 212). For the people of the provinces, being part of the Roman Empire
concerned a practical knowledge of how to act within a changing social
context, and learning new ways of how to express their place in the local
community.
Tatjana Koprivica, Olga Pelcer-Vujacic
University of Montenegro
Historical Institute
tkoprivica@yahoo.com, olgapelcer@gmail.com

REFERENCES
Alföldy G. 1965, Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, Budapest,
Verlag der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Alföldy G. 1969, Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz Dalmatia, Heidelberg, Carl
Winter Universitätsverlag.
Bakovic M. 2011, Preliminarni razultati istraživanja na prostoru kapitolnog hrama lokaliteta
Doclea/Preliminary results of the research into the area of the capitol temple of the
Doclea site, «Nova Anticka Duklja/New Antique Doclea», 2, 9-26.
Baldacci A. 1991, Arheološki izlet dra Roberta Paribenija u Crnu Goru, in V. Pulevic, D.
Vincek (eds.), Crna Gora vrata Balkana. Putopisi i zapisi evropskih botanicara, Cetinje,
Obod, 827-833.
Brunšmid J. 1901, Arheološke bilješke iz Dalmacije i Panonije, IV, Dalmatia, Doclea, «VHAD,
Vjesnik za Historiju i Arheologiju Dalmatinsku», 5, 87-168.
Burzanovic S., Koprivica T. 2011, Anticko rimsko nasljeđe u Crnoj Gori i italijanska spoljna
politika, «Matica», 48, 219-230.

50
 Historical and epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea

Cagnat R. 1893, Inscriptiones latines de Doukla, Montenegro, «Mémoires de la Sociéte des

antiquaires de France», 52, 1-20.
Cermanovic-Kuzmanovic A., Velimirovic-Žižic O., Srejovic D. 1975, Anticka Duklja:
nekropole [Ancient Doclea – necropoleis], Cetinje, Obod.
CIL, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum III, Inscriptiones Asiae, provinciarum Europae Graecarum,
Illyrici Latinae. Inscriptionum Orientis et Illyrici latinarum supplementum. Pars posterior,
T. Momsen, O. Hirschfeld, A. Domaszewski (eds.), Berlin 1902, apud G. Reimerum.
CIL, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VI, Inscriptiones urbis Romae latinae, Additamento-
rum auctarium/Partis quartae fasciculus postremus, M. Bang (ed.), Berlin 1933, apud
G. Reimerum.
CIL, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VII, Inscriptiones Britanniae latinae, E. Hübner, E.
Willibald (eds.), Berlin 1873, G. Reimer.
CIL, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum XIV, Inscriptiones Latii Veteris latinae. Supplementum
Ostiense, L. Wickert (ed.), Berlin, 1930, apud G. Reimerum.
Denton W. 1877, Montenegro. Its People and History, London, Dalby, Isbister & Co.
Gasperini L., 1982, Il lapidario Zeri di Mentana, Roma, Istituto Italiano per la Storia antica.
Gavrielatos A. 2017, Latinate nomenclature for a Romanized identity: Attempts to construct
an aspired displayed identity, in A. Gavrielatos (ed.), Self-Presentation and Identity in
the Roman World, Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 140-159.
Graham E-J. 2009, Becoming persons, becoming ancestors. Personhood, memory and the
corpse in Roman rituals of social remembrance, «Archaeological Dialogues», 16.1, 51-74.
Grbic D. 2009, Iz epigrafske baštine anticke Dokleje: Jedan natpis posvecen NEPTUNO
PERICULORUM ABSOLUTORI [Epigraphic heritage of ancient Doclea: an inscription
dedicated to NEPTUNO PERICULORUM ABSOLUTORI], «Starinar», 59, 175-180.
ILJug, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMXL repertae et
editae sunt, Situla, 25. Ljubljana 1986, Jaro and Ana Šašel (eds.), Slovenian academy
and National museum in Ljubljana Editors.
Kajanto I. 1965, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki, Keskuskirjapaino.
Katicic R. 1962, Die illyrischen Personennamen in ihrem südöstlichen Verbreitungsgebiet,
«Živa Antika», 12, 95-120.
Knight E.F. 1880, Albania: A Narrative of Recent Travel, London, S. Low, Marston, Searle,
& Rivington.
Koprivica T. 2013, Diary entries and photographic documentation of J. A. R. Munro related
to the archaeological exploration of Doclea (Montenegro) in 1893, «Zograf», 37, 1-15.
Koprivica T. 2017, Italijanski doprinos istraživanjima Duklje krajem XIX i pocetkom XX
vijeka, in N. Martinovic (ed.), Zbornik radova sa naucnog skupa Crna Gora i Itali-
ja-istorijske, kulturne, jezicke i književne veze, Podgorica, CANU, 59-68.
Koprivica T. 2018, Dokleja u knjaževini/kraljevini Crnoj Gori, Podgorica, Univerzitet Crne
Gore (in print).
Lörinz B. 1994, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum (OPEL) Vol. I: ABA –
BYSANVS, Budapest, Phoibos Verlag.
Ljubic Š. 1884, Dukljanske starine, «Viestnik hrvatskoga arkeologickoga društva», 2, 33-43.
Markov E. 2005, Putovanje po Srbiji i Crnoj Gori (putne bilješke) [Travels through Serbia
and Montenegro (travel notes)], priredio i predgovor napisao, D. J. Martinovic, Podgo-
rica, CID.
Martinovic J.J. 2011, Korpus antickih latinskih i grckih natpisa Crne Gore, Corpus Inscrip-
tionum Latinarum et Graecarum Montenegri, Kotor, Matica Crnogorska.
Mayer A. 1928-1929, Novopronađeni natpisi u Duklji i oko nje, «Vjesnik za arheologiju i
historiju Dalmatinsku», 50, 65-73.
Millet M. 1990, The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

51
T. Koprivica, O. Pelcer-Vujacic

Mowat R. 1882, Nouvelles inscriptions de Docléa (Exploration de M. Saski), «Revue Ar-

chéologique», 44, 79-81.
Munro J.A.R., Anderson W.C.F., Milne J.G., Haverfield F. 1896, On the Roman Town
Doclea in Montenegro, «Archaeologia» 55, 1-60.
Neugebauer J.L. 1851, Die Südslawen und deren Länder, Leipzig, Costenoble und Remmel-
mann.
Paribeni R. 1903, Iscrizioni romane di Doclea e di Tusi, «Bullettino della Commissione
Archeologica Comunale di Roma», 4, 374-379.
Pelcer-Vujacic O. 2014, Saxa Loquuntur – Kamenje govori ukoliko ga pustimo [Saxa Lo-
quuntur – Stones speak, if we let them], «Istorijski zapisi», 1-2, 91-98.
Petricevic V. 1890a, Dukljanske starine (Doclea) (Su dvije Tablice br. VI i VII), «Bullettino
di Archeologia e Storia Dalmata», 7, 99-106.
Petricevic V. 1890b, Dukljanske starine. (Doclea), «Bullettino di Archeologia e Storia Dal-
mata», 8, 113-119.
Petrovic P. 1975, Paleografija rimskin natpisa u Gornjoj Meziji, Beograd, Archeološki Institut.
Praschniker C., Schober A. 1919, Archäologische forschungen in Albanien und Montenegro,
Wien, In Kommission bei A. Hölder.
Rémy B., Buisson A. 1992, Les inscriptions commémorant la chute de la foudre dans les
provinces romaines de la Gaule. A propos d’un nouveau document découvert à Saint-
Geoire-en-Valdaine (Isère), «Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise», 25, 83-104.
Rendic-Miocevic D. 1948, Ilirska onomastika na latinskim natpisima Dalmacije, Split,
Slobodna Dalmacija.
Rovinski P.A. 1890, Raskopka drevnej Dioklei, proizvedennaja po ukazaniju i na scet´ ego
v´isocestva cernogorskago knjazja Nikolaja (Ot˝ 22-go janvarja do 11-go fevralja 1890.
g), «Žurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosvŝenija, S. Peterburg», 1-17.
Rovinski P.A. 1891, Predloženie raskopki drevnej Dioklei (Ot˝ 22. 02 do 12. 05 1891: rabo-
cih´ dnej bylo 35), Žurnal˝ Ministerstva narodnogo prosveŝenija, S. Peterburg´, 15-33.
Rovinski P. 1909, Cernogorija v jejo prošlom i nastojaŝem, Geografija.-Istorija.-Etnografija.-
Arheologija, tom II, cast 4 [= Montenegro in the past and present, Geography-Histo-
ry-Ethnography-Archaeology, vol. II, part 4)], S. Peterburg (republished in Cetinje-Novi
Sad 1994).
Sanader M. 2013, O sudjelovanju žena u radu rane crkve na primjeru jednog epigrafskog
spomenika iz Duklje/On the participation of women in the work of the early church,
based on the epigraphic inscription from Duklja, «Nova Anticka Duklja/New Antique
Doclea», 4, 8-17.
Saski F. 1882, Notice sur l’état actuel des ruines de Docléa, «Revue Archéologique», 44, 74-77.
Sticotti P. 1908, Über die Ergebnisse einer Reise nach Doclea, Juli 1907, «Anzeiger der
Kaiserlichen Akademiae der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-historische Klasse», 45,
51-55.
Sticotti P. 1913, Die römische Stadt Doclea in Montenegro, Schriften der Balkankommission
Antiquarische Abteilung Heft 6, Wien, In Kommission bei A. Hölder.
Šašel A., Šašel J. 1963-1986, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMII et
MCMXL repertae et editae sunt, Ljubljana, Narodni muzej v Ljubljani.
Šašel Kos M. 2013, Ananca: Greek Ananke Worshipped at Doclea (Dalmatia), in W. Eck, B.
Fehér, P. Kovács (eds.), Studia Epigrafica in Memoriam Géza Alföldy, Bonn, Dr. Rudolg
Habelt GMBH, 295-306.
Šekularac B. 1994, Tragovi prošlosti Crne Gore. Srednjovjekovni natpisi i zapisi u Crnoj Gori
kraj VIII – pocetak XVI vijeka [Traces of past in Montenegro. Mediaeval inscriptions
and writings in Montenegro end of the 8th-beginning of the 16th century], Cetinje, Obod.
Vaglieri D. 1904, Iscrizioni romane del Montenegro, «Bullettino della Commissione archaeo-
logica Comunale di Roma», 32, 284-285.

52
 Historical and epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea

Vucinic S. 2007, Ara posvecena Neptunu i nekoliko nalaza sa antickog lokaliteta Laze Rade-
vica [Altar dedicated to Neptune and other findings from the ancient site Laza Radevic],
«Istorijski zapisi», 1-4, 197-209.
Vujovic D. 1971, Crna Gora i Francuska 1860-1914 [Montenegro and France 1860-1914],
Cetinje, Obod.
Vulic N. 1931, Anticki spomenici naše zemlje [Ancient Monuments of our Country], Spomenik
LXXI, drugi razred, knjiga 55, Beograd, Srpska Kraljevska Akademija.
Vulic N. 1933, Anticki spomenici naše zemlje [Ancient Monuments of our Country], Spomenik
LXXV, drugi razred, knjiga 58, Beograd, Srpska Kraljevska Akademija.
Wilkes J.J. 1969, Dalmatia, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Živanovic, M. 2014, Zanatske radionice kasnoanticke Dokleje [Craft Workshop in Late
Roman Doclea], Podgorica, JU Muzeji i galerije Podgorice.

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a historical and epigraphical survey of the inscriptions from Doclea.
Due to devastation and inadequate protection by the relevant institutions, a large number of
inscriptions have disappeared or have been destroyed by the local population and irresponsible
researchers. Bearing that in mind, every new inscription is important for understanding the
history and everyday life in Roman Doclea.

53