Terroir: Has its meaning changed over the years?

[Robin Garr]

In another thread, several of us are wrestling once again with the exact meaning and nuance of the term "terroir."

It occurred to me, while penning an impassioned response to Hoke just now, that part of my personal issue with this may just be that the meaning - and perhaps the importance - of "terroir" in wine-geek terms has changed dramatically and significantly over the past 20 years, perhaps under the influence of wine publications and online discussion groups.

Mike H. put forth a definition of "terroir" from Karen MacNeil's "Wine Bible" that's probably as good as any for a current understanding of the term:

"....terroir. This French word means the total impact of any given site---soil, slope, orientation to the sun, and elevation, plus every nuance of climate including rainfall, wind velocity, frequency of fog, cumulative hours of sunshine, average high temperature, average low temperature, and so forth. There is no single word in English that means quite the same thing."

But in discussing this, it suddenly occurred to me that the books from which I learned wine didn't say anything like that. To the extent that they discussed terroir at all (and not all of them did), they described it entirely in terms of earth and soil, and not really in a complimentary way.

In Alexis Lichine's 1967 "New Encyclopedia of Wines & Spirits," 1987 edition, he dismissed it in two lines, alphabetized under G for the longer French term:

"<b><i>Goût de terroir</i></b>
In French this means, literally, earthy taste; it denotes a peculiar flavor imparted by certain soils, and not the taste of the soil itself."

In his 1983 "New Encyclopedia of Wine," Hugh Johnson devotes a couple of pages to a quick overview of soils and microclimates without ever using the T word at all.

Things start to get interesting in Alexis Bespaloff's 1988 revision of the 1975 "New Frank Schoonmaker Encyclopedia of Wine." As I recall, this was a true revision, incorporating a lot of rewriting, changes and updates. The section on terroir, still brief, really reads as if Bespaloff read Schoonmaker's old definition, left it in place, but then tacked on the evolving new understanding. (I wish I still had my old first edition so I could confirm this.)

<b>"Terroir (tair-wah'r)</b> French for 'soil' or 'earth,' used in a very special sense in the phrase <i>goût de terroir</i>, or 'taste of the soil.' Certain wines produced on heavy soils have a characteristic, persistent, and sometimes unpleasant earthy flavor; the German equivalent is <i>Bodenton</i> or <i>Bodengeschmack</i>. The word <i>terroir</i> is also used in an extended sense to describe the soil together with the associated climatic conditions of a district or a vineyard; the English equivalent might be microclimate."

Finally, in preference to the quirky redhead, I think I'd rather turn to the beloved Jancis (in the form of correspondents J.G. & R.E.S.) in the Oxford Companion to Wine, Second Edition, 1999. Terroir has obviously become important by this point ... they devote four columns to it. But this excerpt pretty much says it sll:

"Major components of terroir are soil (as the word suggests) and local topography, together with their interactions with each other and with macroclimate to determine mesoclimate and vine microclimate. The holistic combination of all these is held to give each site its own unique terroir, which is reflected in its wines more or less consistently from year to year, to some degree regardless of variations in methods of viticulture and wine-making. Thus every small plot, and in generic terms every larger area, and ultimately region, may have distinctive wine-style characteristics which cannot be precisely duplicated elsewhere. The exent to which terroir effects are unique is, however, debatable, and of course commercially important, which makes the subject controversial. Opinions have differed greatly on the reality and, if real, the importance of terroir in determining wine qualities."

They also note, perhaps inspiring MacNeil, "No precise English equivalent exists for this quintessentially French term and concept."

Maybe. But it still seems to me that "Terroir" has come to mean something very different from its use, as a much more arcane and rarely used term, back when I was a mere youth learning about wine.

Any of you other old-timers have thoughts on this?

Hey, times change. Words change. Usage changes. Definition changes. Understanding can be either expansive or contractive.

Seems to me, if you're promoting the studious and altogether admirable Jancis and the Oxford as your highest source, then my personal definition coincides with hers. So what are we arguing about?

[Robin Garr]

So what are we arguing about?

Nuthin'. Although there's some subtext here: Now that I've figured out that the meaning of the word shifted fairly fast, in linguistic terms, I'm looking for someone to blame, and trying to determine whether the alternation constitutes dumbin' down ...

What about the people? Professor Warren Moran, who is often a keynote speaker on terroir at conferences around the world, includes people as part of the terroir.

I'll be back soon with a link.

Sue

[Robin Garr]

What about the people? Professor Warren Moran, who is often a keynote speaker on terroir at conferences around the world, includes people as part of the terroir.

I'll be eager to follow the link, Sue, although to be quite frank, my knee-jerk response is that at that point, "terroir" has lost all its meaning and become nothing but a meaningless buzzword. If it wasn't there already ...

Sue Courtney wrote:
What about the people? Professor Warren Moran, who is often a keynote speaker on terroir at conferences around the world, includes people as part of the terroir.


I'll be eager to follow the link, Sue, although to be quite frank, my knee-jerk response is that at that point, "terroir" has lost all its meaning and become nothing but a meaningless buzzword. If it wasn't there already ...

Okay, see, we agree on that. My knee jerks just as quickly as yours there. See how easy it is?

And though it could be "dumbing down", it could also be "becoming richer and more textural in meaning". You see this kinda stuff all the time in the OED...it's just that it's usually stretched out over hundreds, if not thousands of years. Things, apparently, are faster now since Al Gore invented the internet (and settle down, I know he didn't say that).

Prof Warren Moran was the keynote speaker at the Terroir Conference at UC Davis in March. There is a commentary on Warren Moran's address at winereviewonline.com by Patrick Comiskey. Comiskey says,

"Professor Warren Moran of the University of Auckland in New Zealand gave the keynote address, and he started with the definition of terroir to which we've all become accustomed: the imprint of soil, climate and aspect upon a wine. But he went on to show that terroir also is a social construct, that the environment's effects on a wine's typicity is detected, determined, maximized and ultimately marketed by those who decide it's there. Its very existence is mediated by the people who interpret it and have it serve their ends. And as the French have learned, and subsequently taught the world, it is also an unbeatable marketing tool. "

Warren Moran also presented a paper at the Cool Climate Symposium in Christchurch earlier this year. It was called 'Crafting terroir' and his big messages in the talk were

1. Terroir is constructed
2. Terroir derives from territory
3. Terroir is holistic
4. Many knowledges contribute to terroir
5. Terroir is learned empirically
6. We knowledge seekers are all the victims of our disciplines
7. Environmental determinism lives
8. Spatial resolution (scale) is one key to terroir

Then he discusses those points in more detail. More from NZ WineGrower Magazine

6. We knowledge seekers are all the victims of our disciplines

Golly, Sue, I really admire that: we...are all the victims of our disciplines.

It wasn't me. I was just a victim of my discipline, officer.

The argument is tenuous and foggy enough that I could see one academic espousing it to a roomful of other academics. From the influence of the environment to metaphysical meaninglessness in eight bullet points: priceless.

I like this sentence .... "And as the French have learned, and subsequently taught the world, it is also an unbeatable marketing tool. "

You make mention of the soils in connection to terroir, but not the underlying geological formations. These can have a big impact on terroir in a single vineyard. When Sue was climbing around the hills in Cyprus on a geology mapping exercises, we could often see a distinct line through a vineyard where the geology changes. Grape vines do not do well on the serpentine rocks, and we could occasionally see the contact zone from a mile away using small binoculars.

Hogwash I say! From my marketing classes many years ago, I learned that whenever one makes a purchase, they are making the best possible perceived decision at that time. Buying wines based on "terrior" is simply one of those perceived differences. Do geology, geography, climate and soil conditions affect the quality of a given wine? Of course, but so do variety, clone, vine age, vineyard management, weather, experience and winemaking techniques. To say "This Pinot Noir wine is from such and such a property in Burgundy and because of the terrior there, its a better wine than that Pinot Noir from NZ (or OR or CA or Ontario)" is nonsense I say.

(too bad there's not a smiley icon for ducking)

(too bad there's not a smiley icon for ducking)

But why? I am sure a lot of people agree with you.

To "terroroir" is human, after all!

Geographic/climatic conditions obviously contribute to the outcome of grape growing (and wine). The problem is that we don't really know enough at present to say much about what those conditions are and how they contribute. So we fall back on a vague term, terroir, that is both easy to dismiss as explaining too much (and therefore nothing) and which contains a kernel of truth.

In practice, the concept can be seen in Paul B.'s frequent calls for wine regions to pay more attention to local physical conditions and less to marketing data in deciding what to produce. Granted, this also can be a recipe for the quick demise of a wine region.

Has the concept changed with time? Sure. The meaning of any poorly understood term will shift this way and that over time. Now the change is in the direction of greater inclusiveness. That happens to make good sense to me, but shouldn't be regarded as clarifying the term.

Terrior of a region should not be thought of as a vine and environment relationship only but as a total ecosystem- (organism-environment interrelationship). For a vine to survive it relies on not only climate and soil but other living things in its ecosystem. All ecosystems are basically the same -“give and take”.

Salute

I've always thought you were a wise man, Victor. Especially when I agree with you.

Terroir and that word 'agree". I remember a terroir discussion over on the other place late last year where knives were drawn and sabbles rattled!! I wonder if this thread will be just as interesting!!

I'm not an old-timer,but when I got interested in wines 15 or so years ago I read several books (older ones, mostly from library). Without having a specific reference (I still have a couple older ones I bought, Johnson's "Wine" included, will see what else if I can dig out), all I can say is that my understanding of "terroir" has nver been limited to soil, but to the physical attributes of a wine-growing place- soil, microclimate, orientation, etc. And that came from older books and conversation- it was very late 90s before I ever ventured on a wine board. If "terroir" just meant soil there'd be no uncertainity about translation.

[Robin Garr]

I'm not an old-timer

Coulda fooled me!

If "terroir" just meant soil there'd be no uncertainity about translation.

Probably so, Dale. No question that it means more now. The earlier Lichine and Schoonmaker quotes (and the Johnson non-mention) seem persuasive to me, though, that the meaning started to shift only some time during the 1980s.

Here's a new one for me - Terroir, to some, includes traditional regional style, or maybe I am mis-reading between the lines.
A local winestore was offering a vertical on Mondavi Cabernet, and a "deal" on the 2003. A friend forwarded me the announcement and asked for my view. I drafted a response - about Tim Mondavi, his resistance to the type of wines that appealed to the pointy people, the low ratings that followed, the eventual selloff, and my worry about the new style - and accidentally sent my response to the winestore instead of my friend. The merchant responded to me as follows:
"That is a good synopsis, but Tim Mondavi was taking his quest for elegance to the point of ignoring Terroir. The Terroir of Napa simply will not make as elegant of a wine as Bordeaux. The new management has brought a good balance of the two back, something like what Robert was doing a couple of decades earlier."
It almost sounds like his idea of Terroir includes traditional regional style.

[Robin Garr]

It almost sounds like his idea of Terroir includes traditional regional style.

Isn't that pretty much the same as what Prof. Warren Moran (quoted by Sue) said?

You could make a case for it, really, IF you buy that "terroir" has expanded from its original "taste of the soil" to incorporate essentially any variable that characterizes the wines of a specific place and distinguishes them from other wines. Once we're out on that slope, why not include local tradition as a variable, assuming that it is consistent?

"That is a good synopsis, but Tim Mondavi was taking his quest for elegance to the point of ignoring Terroir. The Terroir of Napa simply will not make as elegant of a wine as Bordeaux. The new management has brought a good balance of the two back, something like what Robert was doing a couple of decades earlier."
It almost sounds like his idea of Terroir includes traditional regional style.

OW, I personally wouldn't read it that way. I'd read that as "Napa is as a rule warmer than Bordeaux, and therefore generally will be in a more fruitforward/powerful style. So trying to make a Bordeaux-like wine in Napa is a mistake. "

That sure is a possibility, Dale, but the "worry" I expressed, and to which he was responding, was that the new Mondavi was going to be more fruit forward, lower in acid, more extracted, trying to appeal to the pointy people, and end up just being another Napa Cab. I interpreted his response about the "balance of the two" with that background, which of course I didn't give in my earlier posting. In any event, it is an interesting concept. And I think I like it, whether he meant it that way or not.

Hi Robin,
If you really think about it “traditional styles” were created by nature (natural wild yeast, ambient temperatures, etc- Champagne was not invented nor created but discovered). IMO in this respect “style” becomes “identity”.

Salute