" 

 === WHO GAVE YOU A RIGHT TO REMOVE THE POV TAG!!!? === 

 First, De Administrando Imperio is an anachronistic source preserved in different, contradicting, editions. Second, what precise ""Dalmatia"" they were referring to? The notion of ""Dalmatia"" changed a lot during history. Until it stuck to what it is now, about 300 years ago, the Europe regarded basically the whole Western Balkans as ""Dalmatia"". Did the medieval authors refer to the administrative unit inside its precise borders at the specific moment (what moment?) or to the entire region that was commonly known as ""Dalmatia""? Did the term refer to both Dalmatia inferior and Dalmatia superior (in which case it would comprise not only Dioclea, but, most of Rascia too)? Moreover, the fact they spoke about ""Serbs"" (the same may apply to Croats too) doesn't explain who the Serbs actually were. The people? A people? One of the peoples in the area? A military class? The people that provided most of the military class in the area? A dynasty? Even today, in France, for example, they tend to call anybody who looks a bit darker ""an Algerian"". In Italy - ""Moroccan"". They often call any foreign worker from East Europe ""Albanian"", or ""Romanian"", or ""Pole"" etc. depending on what group has the major public exposition at the moment. If nowadays there is often such a little care to make a distinction among ""strange"" peoples, let alone how much Romans or Franks bothered about it! That citation only shows that there has been in existence some source of power (although it's not very clear what extent of power) that both Franks and Romans called ""Serbs"". And that was all they were interested in - who detains the power in the region. If they mention territories that, in certain moment, have been under rule of Serbian princes (either directly, or through subordinates), it doesn't imply they were inhabited by Serbs. It doesn't actually necessarily mean that, in that period, there have been any territories inhabited by Serbs at all, since we don't know what the term ""Serbs"" really meant. If we suppose that some land (say - Rascia) had indeed been inhabited (in part, or completely) by a people called ""Serbs"", and if a close relative of the Rascia's ruler ruled another land, it doesn't imply the another land had been inhabited by Serbs. Finally, if the source say the early Serbs ""ended at Neretva"", it doesn't mean the entire Neretva was the border. It means - at some point, somewhere at Neretva. (Of course, Neretva may have been the border by its whole length, but, the source doesn't say so.) And even if it ended anywhere at Neretva, I really don't understand what would you like to prove with that citation. With only exception of the Delta and maybe the narrow strip by the river, Pagania was - on another side of Neretva! So, if they ""ended at Neretva"", it would mean - they ended before Pagania. Just because the secondary sources are not authored by Serbs, it doesn't mean they are quality sources?   "