Paleorecords of Domesticated and Wild Grapevine in Romania: a Review

Abstract

This paper reviews the, so far available, paleorecords of Vitis sylvestris C.C. Gmel and Vitis vinifera L. from Romania. The study takes into consideration the presence of Vitis pollen from Holocene peat sediment sequences and archaeological context, but also the presence of macrorests from various archaeological sites that date from Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, and La Tène. Both paleobotanical arguments and archaeological discoveries support the theory that places the beggining of viticulture in Romania a few millenia ago, in Neolithic period. Also, written evidences (works of classical authors, epigraphical sources) confirm, indirectly, the presence of grapevine in La Tène period. Occurrences of Vitis vinifera and those of Vitis sylvestris manifest independently of the climate oscillations, being present both through colder and more humid episodes, as well as through drier and warmer events. Probably prehistoric communities have made a constant and deliberate effort, all along the Holocene, to maintain grapevine crops.

Evaluation of Wild, Wine, Table, and Raisin Grapevine (Vitis spp.) Genotypes in Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia

“…The raisin and table grapevines (South African and European) had a moderate plant height compared to the wild and wine grapevines ( Figure 2 ). The result of the present study is in line with [ 13 , 14 ], that clearly and concisely reported that wild grapevines were vigorous compared to the modern grapes. This might be mainly due to genetic differences among the grapevine cultivars [ 15 ], sunlight distribution [ 9 ], and poor canopy management [ 16 ].…”

“…The raisin and table grapevines had higher tendril number compared to the wine grapevines but lower than the wild grapevine cultivars ( Figure 12 ). Similar research findings were reported by [ 13 – 15 ] who found significant tendril number differences among grapevine cultivars. This might be due to genetic variations [ 15 ], vigorous nature of the vine [ 13 ], temperature [ 7 ], sunlight distribution [ 9 ], and canopy management [ 16 ].…”

“…Similar research findings were reported by [ 13 – 15 ] who found significant tendril number differences among grapevine cultivars. This might be due to genetic variations [ 15 ], vigorous nature of the vine [ 13 ], temperature [ 7 ], sunlight distribution [ 9 ], and canopy management [ 16 ].…”

“…This is in accordance with [ 21 , 26 ] that reported that wild grapevine cultivars had lower number of fruits per plant, smaller berry size, and weak berry development patterns compared to the modern wine, table, and raisin grape cultivars. This might be due to genetic variations [ 15 ], poor canopy management, and vigorous nature of wild grapevine species [ 13 , 14 ].…”

“…Indeed, leaf number of Jinka wild grapevine (117.21 ± 1.10) grown in Yirgacheffe was also similar to Perlette table grape (117.69 ± 2.52) grown in Dilla condition. In this regard, [ 13 ] investigated that wild grapevine had similar vine physiology with modern grapevine cultivars. According to [ 17 ], excess leaf number per plant causes several vine diseases, weak berry development, small berry size, and poor wine quality.…”