Historical Green Teas: What Survived and What Only Has a Name

Dozens of green teas were famous in the Tang and Song dynasties, and the relationship between those teas and the ones sold today is complicated. A few have a continuous record. Most were revived in the twentieth century from descriptions. Some exist only as a name in a poem, with no surviving method and no surviving garden. The distinction matters because a tea marketed as ancient is usually a modern reconstruction.

That is not a criticism of the reconstructions. It is a warning about what the word ancient means on a tin, which is usually that the name is old rather than the tea.

Three categories, not one

Longjing and Biluochun are continuous in the sense that the method and the growing area have been in use throughout, even though both were reshaped commercially in the Qing and again in the twentieth century. Their claim to age is defensible.

Guzhu Zisun is the clearest revival. It was a Tang tribute tea from Changxing in Zhejiang, praised in Lu Yu’s writing, and the production lapsed. It was reconstructed in the 1970s from descriptions, and the modern tea is a good one made to a modern reading of an old text.

Huqiu tea from Suzhou is in the lost category. It was famous in the Ming, the gardens were built over, and the tea is no longer made. A tin bearing the name today is using a word rather than describing a product.

Why so many were lost

The obvious cause is war and land use. Gardens near cities were built over, and a tea that depended on a specific hillside disappeared when the hillside became housing.

The second cause is fashion. A tea that fell out of favour stopped being made, and a method that is not practised for two generations is lost even if the text survives.

The third is that many famous teas were tribute products, made in small quantities for the court. When the court disappeared, the market for a tea made in tens of kilograms disappeared with it.

The fourth is subtler. A method described in a Ming text uses tools and terms that no longer exist, and a modern reconstruction has to guess what they meant. Two readings of the same text can produce two different teas.

What the revivals got right and wrong

A revival preserves a name and a rough description, and it invents the details. The producer decides what the leaf should look like, how it should be fired and what it should taste like, using the text as a constraint rather than a recipe.

That is not dishonest as long as it is described as a revival. It becomes dishonest when the marketing presents the modern tea as an unbroken tradition.

Some revivals are excellent. Guzhu Zisun, Huoshan Huangya and several others are good teas by any standard, and their modern form is a legitimate product.

Others are names without substance, made in small quantities for a tourist market and tasting of very little.

• Continuous means the method and garden never lapsed.
• Revived means a text survived and the practice did not.
• Lost means only a name survives.
• Most ancient-sounding names are revivals from the 1950s to 1980s.
• A revival is legitimate if it is described as one.
• Ask whether the garden or only the name is old.

How to read an age claim

Ask what is old. A producer who says the garden is old is making a claim about trees. One who says the method is old is making a claim about a text. One who says the tea is ancient is making a claim that cannot be checked.

The most defensible version is a named garden with a documented history and a method that has been in use. That exists for a handful of teas and it is worth paying for.

The least defensible version is a poetic name with no garden and no record. That is a story, and stories are cheap.

A drinker who wants the old teas should buy the good modern versions and enjoy them as modern teas. The alternative, chasing an authenticity that no longer exists, leads to expensive disappointment.

What the texts actually describe

The Tang texts describe compressed cakes rather than loose leaf. Tea was steamed, pounded, pressed into a mould and dried, then broken up and boiled with salt. That is not a green tea in any modern sense.

The shift to loose leaf came in the Ming, when the first emperor banned the compressed tribute form. The pan-fired methods that produce modern green tea date from that period, which makes them about six hundred years old rather than two thousand.

So a tea described as Tang style is describing something that no longer exists and cannot be reconstructed from the text. A tea described as Ming style is describing the ancestor of the modern product, which is a more defensible claim.

That distinction is worth knowing because the marketing often reaches for the Tang, which sounds older and is less accurate. The Ming is the honest ancestor of the tea in the tin.

• Tang tea was compressed and boiled with salt.
• Loose leaf began in the Ming after a ban on the tribute cake.
• Modern pan-firing dates from the Ming, about six hundred years.
• A Tang-style claim describes something unrecoverable.
• A Ming-style claim is the honest ancestor of the modern tea.
• Older claims are usually less accurate, not more.

Why a lost tea is worth knowing about

The lost teas are a reminder that the current set of famous names is a snapshot rather than a canon. Teas rise and fall with fashion, transport and politics, and the ones that dominate a shelf today were not always the ones that dominated.

Ming writers ranked teas in lists that put Huqiu and Songluo at the top and did not mention some of the teas that are famous now. The rankings changed when the gardens changed and when the market moved.

That history is useful for a buyer because it undercuts the idea that a famous name is inherently better. It is a name that survived, which is a different thing from a tea that is better.

A drinker who takes that seriously will try more teas and rely less on reputation, which is a better use of money than chasing the current canon.

• Famous names are a snapshot of a moment, not a canon.
• Ming rankings put Huqiu and Songluo at the top.
• Some currently famous teas are not in the old lists.
• Names survive for commercial reasons, not only for quality.
• A surviving name is not the same as a better tea.
• Try widely rather than chasing the current reputation.

A final note on the pleasure of the revivals. A good modern Guzhu Zisun is an interesting tea and it is worth drinking for its own sake rather than as a relic.

The same is true of the other revivals. They are modern products made well, and treating them as such is both more accurate and more enjoyable than treating them as survivals.

The lost teas are a reminder that the current canon is a snapshot, which is a reason to explore rather than a reason to mourn.

What a buyer learns from the record

The useful lesson is that a name is a commercial survival rather than a quality ranking. A tea is famous because a garden, a method and a market coincided, and the coincidence can break.

A drinker who understands that will pay for the cup rather than for the reputation, and will be willing to try a tea from a garden that nobody has written a poem about.

A final note on the three categories in practice. A drinker will mostly meet revivals, because the continuous teas are the famous ones and the lost ones are not sold at all.

That makes the revival the interesting case. It is a modern tea wearing an old name, and the honest ones say so on the tin.

That is the whole of the record question, and it comes down to one sentence: ask what survived, and accept that the answer is rarely the tea.

Frequently asked questions