Nicolas Mestre
Nicolas Mestre
I've been thinking about Burgundy and have been trying to formulate an argument based on some research I have done. There is so much conflicting data that I can't seem to get a clear grasp on the matter. I thought that a conversation on the matter might be helpful.
My theory is that terroir as we understand it today is a modern concept that developed rather late in the viticultural history of Burgundy (20th Century). I would claim that the extreme fracturing of agricultural plots into climats is a vestige of Roman land use or post-Roman/very early medieval trends in land use based on property lines (that is, the land was divided up into small parcels very early - in place by the 2nd century - according to the needs of free citizens/colonists of late antique society) and that the supposed classification of vineyards by the Cistercians (often considered the pioneers of this endeavor?) is a myth. In fact, I would contend that the Cistercians were responsible for consolidation of smaller lieu-dits into more regular (and sizeable) climats (ie Clos de Vougeot). The notion that the monks were out amongst the vineyards tasting the soil in order to demarcate one terroir from another appears to be a fantasy conjured up by wine writers in the mid 20th century and perpetuated to this day.
In an article in the 2001 edition of the Annals de Bourgogne, one scholar posits that there is no evidence whatsoever that the monks at Citeaux ever planted a single vine, rather they acquired them through tithes and gifts from free peasants concerned about whether or not their souls were safe from eternal damnation.
Does this mean that terroir as we conceive of it today in Burgundy is largely self-fulfilling? We have bought into the idea that Morey tastes different than Chambolle, but is this in any way complicated by the fact that commune boundaries were often determined based on property lines rather than geological difference?
My theory is that terroir as we understand it today is a modern concept that developed rather late in the viticultural history of Burgundy (20th Century). I would claim that the extreme fracturing of agricultural plots into climats is a vestige of Roman land use or post-Roman/very early medieval trends in land use based on property lines (that is, the land was divided up into small parcels very early - in place by the 2nd century - according to the needs of free citizens/colonists of late antique society) and that the supposed classification of vineyards by the Cistercians (often considered the pioneers of this endeavor?) is a myth. In fact, I would contend that the Cistercians were responsible for consolidation of smaller lieu-dits into more regular (and sizeable) climats (ie Clos de Vougeot). The notion that the monks were out amongst the vineyards tasting the soil in order to demarcate one terroir from another appears to be a fantasy conjured up by wine writers in the mid 20th century and perpetuated to this day.
In an article in the 2001 edition of the Annals de Bourgogne, one scholar posits that there is no evidence whatsoever that the monks at Citeaux ever planted a single vine, rather they acquired them through tithes and gifts from free peasants concerned about whether or not their souls were safe from eternal damnation.
Does this mean that terroir as we conceive of it today in Burgundy is largely self-fulfilling? We have bought into the idea that Morey tastes different than Chambolle, but is this in any way complicated by the fact that commune boundaries were often determined based on property lines rather than geological difference?