Wild-grape research in Baneh, Piranshahr and Sardasht documents valuable regional diversity. Genetic sampling, cultivated varieties and ancient wine residues answer different questions and should be read with their specific locations, dates and limits.

Small dark blue grapes on reddish stalks beneath a woody vine, surrounded by green and red-edged leaves
A female vine labelled Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris at the Charentais vineyard conservatory in Cherves, France, photographed by Pancrat, CC BY-SA 3.0. This illustrates the wild grape form in a collection, not a photographed Zagros population. [6] © Pancrat · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0.

Which wild grape is being discussed?

The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization lists Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris as the wild grapevine distinguished by separate male and female flowers and smaller fruit than cultivated vinifera. [1] Scientific naming matters here: a grape growing outside a vineyard is not automatically a verified wild population. A botanical description, a collection record and a genetic study each provide different evidence about the plants they describe. The accompanying image shows a labelled female plant in a French conservation collection, rather than an Iranian field site.

A specific Zagros study, rather than a global ranking

Doulati-Baneh and colleagues sampled 65 wild vines from five populations in Baneh, Piranshahr and three Sardasht localities, in Kurdistan and West Azerbaijan provinces. Their 23-microsatellite analysis found substantial diversity and geographical grouping. The vines occupied humid forest and wetland settings near rivers and streams. [2] This regional sample cannot establish a global diversity ranking or a single birthplace of viticulture.

Cultivated varieties are a separate research subject

A 2012 study by Hiva Seyedimoradi and colleagues analysed 21 local grapevine accessions from Kurdistan Province held at the Sanandaj agricultural research station. The material consisted of cultivated varieties, including Rasha, Khoshnam and Askari. ISSR and DAMD markers were compared as tools for identifying variation. [3] These results concern a cultivated collection. They should not be silently substituted for a wild-population survey, even when both studies use molecular markers and refer to the same province.

Early wine evidence has its own dates and sites

Penn Museum’s Hajji Firuz jar, object 69-12-15, is dated to 5400–5000 BCE. Its catalogue records a reddish residue testing positive for wine and terebinth resin, in a reconstructed vessel originally found among jars set into a Neolithic house floor. [4] McGovern and colleagues’ 2017 study reported earlier biomolecular wine evidence from Georgian sites, around 6000–5800 BCE, using chemical analysis alongside environmental and archaeobotanical evidence. [5] Ancient residues establish activity at particular places and times. They do not identify the ethnicity of the makers or automatically establish when a vine became domesticated.

Conservation is a practical conclusion of the genetic work

The authors recommended collections outside the original habitat (ex situ) alongside protection of the Sardasht-Ghasmarash population and its river margins (in situ). These approaches retain sampled genetic material and, in the protected habitat, continuing natural processes. [2] This is a practical conservation proposal, rather than a claim of exclusive ownership.

Correction to the earlier article

The previous version described a Kurdish-centred Grape’s Fertile Triangle as the source of every grape and every wine, and treated genetic diversity as proof of that conclusion. Those claims have been withdrawn. Regional wild populations, cultivated diversity and early winemaking are substantial subjects in their own right. Keeping the evidence separate makes the Zagros contribution clearer and gives readers identifiable studies instead of an unsupported universal origin story.

Sources and further reading

  1. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, EPPO Global Database, VITVS: Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris; botanical overview.
  2. Hamed Doulati-Baneh et al., Genetic characterization of some wild grape populations of Zagros mountains (Iran) to indentify a conservation strategy, Plant Genetic Resources 13/1 (2015), pp. 27–35, DOI 10.1017/S1479262114000598; author-deposited text, published online 2014.
  3. Hiva Seyedimoradi et al., Comparative genetic diversity analysis in Iranian local grapevine cultivars using ISSR and DAMD molecular markers, Environmental and Experimental Biology 10 (2012), pp. 125–132.
  4. Penn Museum, Wine Jar, object 69-12-15, Hajji Firuz, 5400–5000 BCE; collection catalogue and residue description.
  5. Patrick McGovern et al., Early Neolithic wine of Georgia in the South Caucasus, PNAS 114/48 (2017), pp. E10309–E10318; archaeological dates and chemical evidence.
  6. Pancrat, Lambrusque femelle raisin, female Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris at the Charentais vineyard conservatory, Cherves, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.