Claude,
That is what I said (or was trying to say). My point was that those other districts weren’t considered as high quality as the Cote de Nuits and Cote de Beaune even pre-phylloxera per Lavalle.
Adam:
A hefty set of questions this close on to harvest time!
There are so many ways to go in response to this question, but in brief, my 2 cents…
Cent 1: Terroir strikes me as the inevitable outcome of any sustained effort at farming. Coffee, tomatoes, mangoes, avocados, artichokes, rice, you name it… I’m sure growers of all of these agricultural crops (and more) also recognize the concept of terroir and its pressing importance to the job at hand.
The question to my mind is: why has terroir gained such tremendous emphasis in the world of wine? I think that there are several factors unique to the vine and to wine that have caused terroir to be so highly valued. A few of them would be:
-the fact the the vine is a perennial that produces for decades.
-the fact that V. vinifera has been planted so widely, and cultivated for so long.
-the fact that many wines hold up reasonably well for several years post fermentation.
-the fact that this product has been distributed so far afield from its point of production for so long.
-the fact that wine is an alcoholic beverage (bringing about associations with religion and heightened associations with aesthetics).
It’s also possible that, as some assert, grapevines and wines just show their terroir better (have more transparency) than other agricultural products. I’m not sure of that… I simply don’t have enough info from other fields with which to compare to wine.
Cent 2: With regard to statements like this: “So why now is human involvement in wine considered a bad thing by so many? Could it somehow go back to the rather puratanical belief in “original sin” and that dipping the toe of humanity into a natural process poisons that process?”… Is this really an accurate portrayal of the naturalista position? Human involvement is a given, is a necessity in making wine. The question is not whether or not Man should be involved, but what the nature of his involvement will be. So his involvement can either be good or bad. As such, human involvement is of critical importance… I’d hardly call it less important than that of Nature.
As to the origins of the natural winemaking movement, I’d point to Europe. That’s where the whole thing started, and New World proponents of the trend, both consumers and producers, tend to be euro-centric in outlook. Why have European vignerons gone that way? I think it’s mostly a reaction to excesses that went before. Intensive chemical-based viticulture has been more prevalent for far longer over there than in the New World. The effects are quite tangible. Several famous Bordeaux vineyards show the accumulated effects of over a century of copper-based sprays building up in the soils. The disastrous effects of chemical fertilizers in Burgundian vineyards are well known to us all. Champagne’s most cherished climats have soils intentionally strewn with garbage that won’t decompose for decades. Here in the States (OK, there in the States) the wine industry has avoided such scandals chiefly because it is a young industry. But the ascendancy of agri-business styled farming in other regions of the US serves as a cautionary tale… farming, so often seen as benign and “pro-environment”, can have a very severe negative impact on environmental health if care is not taken.
There are other aspects to the natural wine movement. Globalization vs. the local artisan, the Back-to-the-Earth movement, echoes of Hippiedom, the locavore movement, concerns about food safety, the Slow Food movement, even religion and new age-ism probably figure into the mix. But I’m running out of steam on this, and I’ve got some trellising that needs installing.
Thanks for reading this far…
Cheers,
Bruce,
Interesting thoughts…I will definitely give them some consideration. As to whether my quote is an accurate portrayal of the naturalista position…I am sure there are as many positions as there are followers…but I have seen this quote used by some who take such a postion…but Mr. Fukouka who is now one of the gurus of natural farming…
“Human beings with their tampering do something wrong, leave the damage unrepaired, and when the adverse results accumulate, work with all their might to correct them. When the corrective actions appear to be successful, they come to view these measures as splendid accomplishments. People do this over and over again. It is as if a fool were to stomp on and break the tiles of his roof. Then when it starts to rain and the ceiling begins to rot away, he hastily climbs up to mend the damage, rejoicing in the end that he has accomplished a miraculous solution.”
This, to me, strikes me as a quote that seems to indicate that human involvement comes with more negative results than positive.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
This sentiment was actually the genesis of the BD movement as well. Steiner was approached by farmers suffering adverse affects from application of modern chemical products etc. He might have been a whackjob but the problems were quite real.
I think the value of many of these philosophies stems from a recognition of the issues caused by short-sighted interventions rather than any specific proscribed practice. In other words, I don’t think that the 500 or 501 prep matter much, but approaching systemic intervention in the vineyard with extreme caution actually yields great benefit. Many modern products are great at growing things cheaper and mitigating risks, but there is an ecosystem and (in the case of grapevines) qualitative cost to these actions. Food tastes better and more unique when it is grown in the most diverse and natural an ecosystem as possible. Does anyone disagree with that?
Adam,
seems to me this quote from Fukuoka can explain many of our problems today, from the sorry state of health care in the US to global warming. We tend to ignore problems (of our own making) until they build to a tipping point.
Regarding human interaction in winemaking - yes it is a human invention. No question. The issue is whether one can be content to start the process and see what happens (and maybe be surprised at the results), or must one guide the process every step of the way, thus imprinting his or her personality on the wine?
Most naturalistas (nice word) feel the former option is more true to the vineyard and vintage. Kind of like art vs. craft.
Best,
Hank
I really still don’t get all the angst over the definition/concept of terroir. I think the important take away is merely the fact that overt manipulation is NOT a part of it. IIRC, human participation was always a part of it - as was a sense of spiritualism. Why must we try to quantify it in the same way that we’ve tried to quantify scores or try to rationally explain BD? To what end?
Kevin,
I don’t know enough about growing things other than grapevines to know if that is true across the board or not. Granted, we are talking here about wine…and fine wine (definitely a luxury product)…but given the rapid growth in world population and the need for cheap food to feed this population…wouldn’t the ability to grow food cheaply, mitigating risks, in larger quantities, be a huge positive step for most of humanity?
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Hank,
Thanks for chiming in!
Regarding the quote and if it is applicable to many of our problems today…I do think it depends on your world view as to whether or not you see it as applicable and accurate or not. I see (despite the “sorry state of health care in the US”) a 30 year increase in lifespan in the United States in the 20th century. There’s been a 350% increase in life expectency world wide since the Bronze age…with a dip only recently because of AIDS (a “naturally” occuring disease…that humans will, hopefully, fix). – My point is, I think you can look at humanity and be much more positive that Fukuoka was in his quote.
Back to wine…if humans are natural, as I assume we are, isn’t our involvement in the process natural as well? And when I think of art, I definitely think of an artist imprinting his/her personality on the art…and the art being valued precisely because this personality is imprinted on the art. Some others have brought up some reasons, what is your thought on why is being reflective of the vintage and place more valued in wine than being true to the unique person that made it?
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
I think a good analogy might be artists who use chance to introduce an element of unpredictability into their art. They set up a framework around which many things can happen, and then basically step back and “watch”. Jackson Pollack comes to mind. So does John Cage (and also some of Brian Eno’s work). For these guys, the work was in devising the process without knowing the outcome.
I do think that ultimately, the personalities of these folks does come out in their art, in spite of the attempts to keep it out. So there’s your human element. Its probably a cyclical thing - the human shaping the outcome which then affects the person who made it.
If a vigneron sets him or herself up with a framework of high quality grapes, then the cellar work can proceed on its own. The “winemaking” becomes a spectator event, almost an afterthought. All of these natural folks will tell you: without great grapes, non-interventionist winemaking is not possible. (and “great” here means grown without chemicals, which can also make the cellar work difficult).
By being so intimately involved in the grape growing, the imprint of the vigneron is always there.
It might be a positive step for humanity (I know many that would debate even that), but the same processes and philosophies that make food cheaper tend to make mediocre (though possibly cheaper) wine.
It’s important to remember why there are thousands of different wines made, but only a few brands of soft drinks. When it comes to wine, people are looking for a unique, natural and authentic experience.
Keith, au contraire, look into the history of French wine marketing, the historic role of La Gironde and of the port at Bordeaux. The historic reality is that Bordeaux and Burgundy are the case studies for wine marketing because of historic export markets. Look at the role of people like Louis Latour as well. This is basic case study material in wine marketing.
But I think we and those before us with more vested interests have embellished the history for our own various purposes. The reality of the Cistercians was driven more by exigencies of available lands and where they could drag a plow, grow food to sustain them, and then what lands were donated to them.
The Cistercians were able to lay the basis for the idea of crus because THEY WERE FARMERS and noticed the differences of site as translated into vine and fruit physical characteristics through wet, cold, dry, hot years and all the permutations in between. They saw the effect of soil and site physical characteristics on wine quality.
Reading through the revisionist marketing “overlay” makes it hard to get a grasp of historic reality, but if you look it’s still there.
The problem is that the world is no longer flat and that there are many combinations of soils and climates outside the old world. That’s the real problem for the historic regions. There are other terroirs with climates and soils that are cooler, longer in season, with less vigorous soils and latitude, that ripen every single vintage.
About terroirs in Burgundy :
It was a job there in the past where the men had to taste the earth (litterary : they were tasting earth).
Their official names : “LE GOURMET”. Jacky Rigaux has wroten some nice history about them.
How about some examples or facts.
Things don’t sell without marketing. Though there are earlier examples, wine marketing for France in large part first reached its primacy by developing Great Britain as an export market for wine.
Do you think you developed your sophisticated preferences on your own? People of good taste, especially a certain type of American, drink what they’re supposed to drink through marketing of “chic, refined and classic European tastes.”
Look at the trials done with the same bottle of wine poured as 3 blind pours, but described as $20, $50, and $100. Or, you can do the same thing by decanting the same wine into bottles of different crus to see which people prefer. Those are examples of marketing at work.
I would like to give a shout out to the Egyptians, some of the first folks to identify wines by point of origin. Wine Making in Ancient Egypt | Arab World Books" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Michael’s point is well taken and the concept of terroir, albeit without the name goes back far beyond the days when the members of the Parisi tribe were just settling into that small island in the middle of the Seine. More than that, with only one major error, the source referred to by Michael is a good one. The error – quite simple – the omission of the fact that earliest wines of Pharaohnic Egypt were made not from grapes but from other fruits, especially watermelons. Even then, however, growers knew that certain regions would produce fruits of better quality for making wines. The first grape wines of Egypt were probably imported from Canaan (ancient Israel is one likes) as were the first cultivated vines.
Vintners in ancient Israel knew as we do today that locating vineyards at higher altitudes, where there are greater temperature changes between night and day, would cause the fruit to ripen more slowly, adding to the sweetness of the fruit and its ability to produce fine wines. Two ways of growing vines were known: in one the vines were allowed to grow along the ground; in the other they were trained upward on trellises (Ezekiel 17:6–8). It was widely accepted then as today that vines cultivated by the second method almost always produce superior grapes. It was also known that certain indigenous grapes would flourish better in different parts of the land, places where the soil and (even the word was unknown in those days) microclimates would have major impact on the quality of the grapes
Remains of ancient wine presses may be found today in all parts of Israel, from the Galilee to Jerusalem and the Negev Desert. In nearly every part of Israel, archaeologists have discovered hundreds of jars for the storage and transportation of wine. Many of these amphorae list in detail where and by whom the wine was made, as well as the year of the vintage, indicating that even in antiquity the source of the grapes and the quality of the harvest were considered important.
It is known today that even during the Bronze Age, Egyptian Pharaohs enjoyed wines that were shipped from Canaan. The growing of grapes and the production of wine was a major agricultural endeavor during the periods of the First and Second Temples, and the kings of Judah and Israel were said to have owned large vineyards as well as vast stores of wine. The vineyards and stores of King David in particular were so numerous that he is said to have appointed two officials, one to be in charge of the vineyards, and the other to be in charge of storage (I Chronicles 27:27)
Leaving religion and metaphysics aside for the moment, a great many archeological findings in Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Palestine support much of these hypotheses. Alas, it is true that the indigenous grapes of the Middle-East have been lost. On a more positive side, however, the areas within Israel that are now proving the best for planting modern varieties are precisely the same areas as were developed during days of antiquity.
Best
Rogov
Rogov,
Setting aside the marketing difficulties, what do you think about a theory I’ve had brewing for awhile that it might behoove Israeli growers to experiment more with Mediterranean-terroir grapes. Sure, some have had amazing success with cabernet and the usual suspects, but it would be pretty odd indeed if there weren’t some more obscure varieties that were more suitable. Personally, I’d love to see what could be done with Aglianico or assorted other southern Italian or Greek varieties.
I think Aglianico might reward more temperature variation and a cooler climate than you find in Israel. Ditto Nerello. Things like Gaglioppo, Nero, Negro, Mourvede/Monastrell, Grenache, and many many others might be more suited.
I think Nerello from Mt Etna is really interesting. Some of it is too alcoholic but the best are very complex and elegant much like great Pinot.
Keith, Hi…
As we have all come to know, most of the news from our region is bad news. Be of good cheer, however, for today I bear both bad and good news.
The bad news (although not new) is that whatever varieties existed before the Moslem occupation of the region in the 7th century have been completely lost. Not even the most diligent DNA analyses have been able to turn up a thing.
The potentially good news is that experimental plots are being developed with grapes indigenous to other Mediterranean countries (those including Sicily, Puglia, Lebanon and various regions within Greece). To date the results have not been overly encouraging, the seemingly minor differences in soils and both macro-and micro-climates having a far greater impact than had then had been anticipated.
I do agree that Israel is doing well and increasingly well with Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Sauvignon Blanc, Chardonnay, Viognier and other of the well known varieties. We have also been seeing fine results with Petite Sirah, Carignan and Cabernet Franc and varieties such as Barbera, Tempranillo and even (forgive me) Pinotage are starting to show well. As California, Oregon and Washington State do not have their “own” varieties, so it may be in the end with Israel as well.
Best
Rogov