Wild grapevines in the Zagros are documented plant populations with value for conservation and crop research. Their history connects regional habitats with the wider development of viticulture; archaeological wine residues and genetic models answer different questions about that development.

Small dark grapes on reddish stalks beneath a woody vine branch, with a curled tendril and green and red leaves
A female wild grapevine, Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris, photographed by Pancrat at the Conservatoire du vignoble charentais in Cherves, France. This botanical illustration of the plant is not a photograph of a Zagros field population. © Pancrat · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0.

What the name wild grape refers to

The Eurasian wild grape is commonly identified as Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris, distinguished from cultivated subsp. vinifera in Dong and colleagues’ study. [4] Tirêya hov is used here descriptively in Kurdish. Field or genetic identification distinguishes the research material below; a vine outside a vineyard is not automatically a wild population.

Documented populations in Kurdistan and West Azerbaijan

Doulati Baneh, Hassani and Abdollahi collected nine wild-grape accessions from forests and wetlands in Iran’s Kurdistan and West Azerbaijan provinces for a 2015 experiment. Their account describes humid woodland and river-margin habitats. [1] This documents particular populations, not every oak woodland. They propagated cuttings in pots to compare responses to salt stress; collection habitats and experimental conditions were different settings.

Genetic diversity gives a reason for conservation

Doulati Baneh and colleagues’ study published in Plant Genetic Resources analysed 65 wild samples from five Zagros populations using 23 microsatellite markers. Its public abstract reports substantial genetic diversity and geographically structured groups. Combining molecular and field evidence, the authors proposed preservation outside the original habitats for much of the material, and in-place preservation for the Sardasht-Ghasmarash population to maintain ongoing adaptation. [2] These are study-specific conservation recommendations, not a ranking of the Zagros above all other wild-grape regions. They make the case for protecting living genetic resources without needing an exclusive origin claim.

Hajji Firuz and the older evidence from Georgia

Hajji Firuz Tepe in the Zagros remains an important early wine site: the pottery residues discussed by Penn’s research team date to about 5400–5000 BCE. Louisa Shepard’s 2017 university report explains that the team’s later findings in Georgia were earlier, about 6000–5800 BCE. [3] McGovern and colleagues’ paper identifies chemical evidence supported by archaeological, botanical and environmental analysis. [6] A residue interpreted as grape wine is evidence for processing grapes at a particular place and time. It does not, by itself, prove the first domestication of the vine, the ancestry of every wine, or the ethnic identity of Neolithic makers. The previous description of Hajji Firuz as the oldest known example was outdated.

A 2023 genomic model: more than one domestication centre

Dong and colleagues compared 3,525 wild and cultivated accessions. Their model proposed concurrent domestication in Western Asia and the Caucasus around 11,000 years ago, followed by dispersal and genetic exchange with western wild vines. Selection involving flower sexuality, berry traits and flavour was also examined. [4] This is genomic inference, not an excavated wine dated to 11,000 years ago or evidence for a single ancestral Zagros vine. Archaeological dates and modelled population histories address different evidence.

Wild resources and cultivated Kurdish grapes

A separate 2019 study by Asaad Mahmood, Shaimaa H. Ali and Shabaq M. Hawezy compared 13 local grape cultivars from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq with four European cultivars using 12 microsatellite markers. Its abstract reports variation useful for identification, conservation and breeding. [5] Those cultivated vines are different research material from wild populations. In the salinity experiment, wild accessions also responded differently: numbers 4 and 7 showed fewer visible symptoms under the tested conditions. [1] Such results explain a practical interest in conserving diversity; they do not guarantee performance in every vineyard. Regional grape history includes both wild habitats and generations of cultivated varieties.

Sources and further reading

  1. H. Doulati Baneh, A. Hassani and R. Abdollahi, Growth and Physiological Responses of Some Wild Grapevine Genotypes to Salinity, Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 21/3 (2015), pp. 530–535, especially 530–531.
  2. H. Doulati Baneh et al., Genetic Characterization of Some Wild Grape Populations of Zagros Mountains to Identify a Conservation Strategy, Plant Genetic Resources 13/1 (2015), pp. 27–35, DOI 10.1017/S1479262114000598; university repository public abstract.
  3. Louisa Shepard, Discovery Finds Winemaking Is Centuries Older Than Previously Believed, Penn Today, 30 November 2017: Hajji Firuz and the Georgian discoveries.
  4. Yang Dong et al., Dual Domestications and Origin of Traits in Grapevine Evolution, Science 379 (2023), pp. 892–901, DOI 10.1126/science.add8655; author-institution copy, especially p. 892.
  5. Asaad Mahmood, Shaimaa H. Ali and Shabaq M. Hawezy, Molecular Characterization of Autochthonous Grapevine Cultivars in Kurdistan Using Simple Sequence Repeats, Journal of Garmian University 6/3 (2019), pp. 328–335; published abstract.
  6. Patrick McGovern et al., Early Neolithic Wine of Georgia in the South Caucasus, PNAS 114/48 (2017), pp. E10309–E10318; abstract and significance statement.