Paper short abstract:

TBD

Paper long abstract:

The term refugium has been used to denote areas where Eurasian steppe peoples were safe from their enemies owing to remoteness, difficulty of access, or some combination of such factors (not to be confused with refugium as a temporary fortification of medieval villagers). This term was coined by Annemarie von Gabain and employed most frequently by Omeljan Pritsak, and as well by Peter Golden. A degree of sacredness was ascribed to some refugia by their possessors. Examples of refugia are the region north of the Göbi Desert for the Hiung-nu, Rouran, and Türks, the Semirechye/Yetisu for the West Türk Qaganate and Türgesh, the Blue Forest on the Samara River for Polovtsians/Qipchaqs, and Burqan Qaldun mountain for the Mongols of Chinggis Khan.

Because of the scarcity of explicit, unambiguous sources (pace Orkhon inscriptions) and a tendency to make casual use of the term, refugium has yet to be established as a recurring, archetypical phenomenon (real or imagined) in Eurasian history. Nor has it been well-defined as an analytical concept. I will argue that it is crucial to distinguish between a desert, steppe, forest, wetland, mountain, or other wilderness zone that provided refuge for bandits, insurgents, qazaqs, and other fugitives and a true refugium that, with or without sacred attributes, provided a territorial basis for the creation of a robust and more lasting center of power or a sociopolitical formation (or served as a crucial territorial component thereof). This paper will analyze the aforementioned regions and others in the Great Eurasian Steppe, such as the countless islands and wetlands of the lower Dnipro River below its rapids (Zaporozhia) where the genesis of Ukrainian cossackdom occurred. Also considered will be remote shores of the Baltic Sea whence the Goths (pace Jordanes) and the Vikings emerged, and likewise the Arabian Peninsula for the Arabs and Islam. A comparison and analysis of such places will show that (1) not all of them qualified as full-fledged refugia and few were considered sacred; (2) ideal-type notions of a refugium were not commonplace, hence no historical term for the concept—that Turkic terms such as yïsh (mountain-forest) or quz (sunless place) denoted refugia as opposed to landscapes is unproven; (3) most importantly, there was a continuum between simple refuges and full-fledged refugia and it is important to scrutinize the particular physical geographic features and other circumstances that lent a place longer-term efficacy rather than just short-term refuge status.