The

Misleading Name of Pisco-Elqui

Gonzalo Gutiérrez1

Brussels
February 2019



Translation: Meg McFarland

© Copyright 2019
Gonzalo Gutiérrez Reinel

1 The author wishes to thank the Minister in the Diplomatic Service of Peru, Agustín de Madalengoitia,

Minister-Counselors Gonzalo Bonifaz and Arturo Arciniega, Counselor Alberto Hart, First Secretaries
Álvaro de los Ríos and José Miguel Nieto and Mr. Rodrigo Taipe for his effort to locate a vast portion of
the documents cited in this article.




The Misleading Name of Pisco-Elqui

At the beginning of 1936, in Chile, the town of “La Unión” was renamed "Pisco-Elqui”.

Analyzing various geographical, cartographic, legal and historical sources, among them many

diplomatic communications between the Embassy of Peru and the United States Department of

State, as well as the memoirs of a former Chilean president, corroborates that the name change was

not a response to a sociocultural evolution, as stated by various researchers, but rather to a mala

fide trade scheme mounted in a few weeks to circumvent the provisions of the United States on the

correct usage of geographical names to designate spirits.

Pisco-Elqui: The Product of a Sociocultural Process in Chile?

On January 22nd, 1936, during the government of President Arturo Alessandri, Law 5798

was adopted in Chile, which changed the name of the town known as “La Unión”, in the ninth sub-

delegation of Paihuano of Coquimbo province, to "Pisco-Elqui”. The law was very succinct and

offered no rationale: “The town of La Unión, of the Department of Elqui, will be called hereinafter

'Pisco-Elqui'. This Law will take effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette”

(Boletín 307).

In order to justify this modification and other changes in South America’s geographical

names, in August 2014, the magazine of the Faculty of Agronomic Sciences of the University of

Tarapacá, Chile, published an article titled "Pisco and Toponymy, Impact of the Spirit Routes in the

Development of Names and Geographical Locations in Chile, Peru and Argentina”. The article

proposes: "the names of the areas affected by the production and distribution of brandy in the

aforementioned countries initiated a cultural movement from the colonial period to present, a

process in which pisco’s culture played a relevant role” (Lacoste, Idisea 31).

2
 Subsequently, multiple sections of the article were copied word-for-word to the book, Pisco

Was Born in Chile. The 15 authors of the book focus on “Pisco and Toponymy” in chapter 12.

The main idea of the article and chapter 12 of Pisco Was Born in Chile is: “the names of the

most important places (the port of Pisco in Peru and the town of Pisco-Elqui in Chile) traveled in

reverse paths: the Peruvian name that represented brandy production was earlier, while in Chile it

arose two centuries after the birth of the homonymous product“ (Lacoste, Idisea 40). To support

this, the authors claim:

The process of selecting names in history was a complex and rugged process,

subject to a series of political, social, economic and cultural factors ... that finally

resulted in an intense social, economic and cultural movement, in which different

social groups took part…..It therefore can be concluded that the name change of this

town (from" La Unión” to “Pisco-Elqui") was the result of a sociocultural process

that resulted in a political decision. (35)

What is more, the article and the book that copies it both specify that “Pisco-Elqui is the toponymic

birthplace of Chilean pisco. It is located in the Elqui Valley, a place with a rich history of distilling

pisco and spirits since the colonial period” (Lacoste, Idisea 34). Seeking to sustain the argument of

the toponymic birthplace, the supposed product of a sociocultural process that catalyzed the

decision made by the Chilean legislative power, Pisco Was Born in Chile attempts to disguise this

fallacy. The authors refer back to more than two centuries to 1715, using the name Pisco-Elqui to

buttress the idea that that town already existed in the 18th century. This deceptive statement is

repeated several times2, and is even reflected in an illustration:

2 See Pisco Was Born in Chile, pages 34, 61, 97, 128, 134, 135, 379 for more information.

4
 Focusing on the minutiae that the “inventory of the La Torre farm (1733) […] had three clay

jars of pisco” (Pisco 47), the authors3 hypothesize that this is the oldest record of the use of the

word pisco associated with the grape brandy in Chile and the Americas. They also propose that

shortly after, other residents of the Elqui Valley started following suit, and began to call the

distillate pisco (Lacoste, Pisco 47).

This discovery seems spectacular. However, it is inconceivable that such a meticulously

written book does not reproduce such remarkable evidence from this historical document. This so-

called inventory, the foundation of the book’s entire argument, is obscurely glossed over in an

annex, between pages 339 and 341. Its most relevant section is cited as: “7 cooling tanks; three

pisco clay jars; a box with Saint Anthony inside; a Saint Rita with a broken frame” (Lacoste, Pisco

340).

Two points stand out here: the original inventory lists “three Pisco’s clay jars”. More

precisely, in the original book, the word “Pisco” is mentioned in capital letters, as with every proper

name listed in the inventory. This seemingly trivial detail has great significance. The capitalization

of the word in the original document demonstrates the inventory does not describe the content or

purpose of the containers, but on the contrary, it clearly indicates the geographical origin of the

three clay jars found on the Chilean farm: the city of Pisco, in the Viceroyalty of Peru.

This interpretation is confirmed by another interesting fact. The La Torre farm, where the

inventory was carried out in 1733, near La Serena, Chile, was owned by Pedro Cortés Monroy y

Mendoza, the first cousin of Francisco Cortés de Monroy, Chief Commissioner of the Court of the

Inquisition, who in turn had been awarded assets of the Hacienda Cóndor in the Pisco Valley in

Peru. It is likely that the clay jars found in the La Torre farm were part of those goods that Francisco

Cortés, first cousin of the owner of the La Torre farm had obtained in Peru.

3 See Gonzalo Gutierrez’s, “Pisco Wasn’t Born in Chile”, pages 67-76, in El pisco y su vigencia, for an insightful analysis of this hypothesis.

5
 However, this is not the only element of the original document subject to scrutiny. Six lines

below the first mention of the clay jars from Pisco, it states: “five alembic cannons to make brandy"

and “1 earthenware container and 2 alembic cannons to make brandy”. As in the examples above,

the use of the word “brandy” is highly revelatory. How plausible is it that the drink was called

“Pisco” in the inventory in Chile in 1733, and a few lines below in the same document, the

transcriber used the word “brandy” to describe production equipment? Do the editors suggest that

in a small corner of northern Chile in 1733, there was a distinction between two spirits, one pisco

and the other brandy? The items in this inventory confirm that the word Pisco refers to the origin of

the clay jars, and not a spirit, since at that time the generic term used in South America was

“brandy” (Frézier 166,167). This same contradiction is seen in the inventory of Cristóbal Rodríguez,

cited on page 66 of the aforementioned work.

Pisco’s Origin in Peru

It is widely known that “Pisco” was the name used to describe the town and port currently

known as Pisco in Peru long before the arrival of the Spaniards. Pisco has been documented and

cartographically recorded since colonial times. The first map drawn by the cartographer Diego

Méndez in 1584 is indisputable proof of this. As seen below, the port of Pisco is clearly delineated

on the shores of the "Gulf of Lima":

6

Pervviae Avriferæ Regionis Typvs, Didaco Mendezio autore, 1584

7

Villa de Pisqvi

“Primera Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno”, 1615, p. 1047

Guamán Poma de Ayala, a Quechua nobleman from Ayacucho, between 1600 and 1615,

wrote a manuscript titled “First New Chronicle and Good Government” dedicated to King Philip III

of Spain to chronicle the current affairs in the region. Among the towns and cities he described

were Pisco and Ica. Discussing the latter, Guamán Poma de Ayala wrote: “It is a rich, powerful town,

with an abundance of fruit, bread, corn, meat and fish and wine like water, the best in the kingdom

and very cheap, the clay jars cost eight reales [...] The jurisdiction of Cuzco, the jurisdiction of

Guamanga and Guancabilca, Chocllo Cocha and the city of Lima and the town of Callao are supplied

with wine from there" (1048).

8
 Pisco, trade and colonial taxes

In addition to its geographical relevance in Peru, there are also multiple records that use the

word Pisco to reference the brandy. In 1680, a tithe of 965 clay jars of brandy was paid to the city

of Pisco (Peruvian National Archives, Pago 1680). Two years later, in 1682, a similar tithe of 632

and a half clay jars was made.

Moreover, studying records of the alcabala tax, a fee required for trade in colonial America,

provides profound insight about brandy production in the past in Peru. One example

documentation is that of a payment of the trade tax in the first half of 1750 by ships arriving at the

port of Callao, some of them coming from Pisco. In the period between January and July of that year,

8 different ships disembarked and paid an alcabala for a total of 554 bottles of "Brandy from Pisco"

(Peruvian National Archives, Pago 1750).

The manifest from the Nuestra Señora de Bethlem ship dated February 7th, 1750 is also

highly significant. Among the cargo were jars of Brandy from Pisco, all destined for Ecuador. The

9
310 containers belonged to four different exporters: Andrés de Soto (10 jars), Nicolas Ugarte (100

jars), Fernando de Figueroa (100 jars) and Joseph Salazar (100 jars).

These documents from the 18th century provide irrefutable evidence that “pisco” referred

to the brandy shipped from the port of the same name. Its frequent use began to mark the new

nomenclature for the distilled spirit. A Chilean-Argentine researcher described this etymological

evolution as follows:

The oldest reference to the use of the name Pisco to denominate Peruvian brandy

dates from 1764 and is found in Customs Guides. The royal bookkeepers had to

enter each of the cargo items to record the payment of alcabala taxes. That is why

they entered ‘so many liquor bottles from the Pisco region’, over and over again, line

after line, to fill entire books with this data. By repeating the same words, the

apocopes began to be used. Little by little, ‘so many clay jars of Pisco brandy’ started

replacing ‘from the region of’. Then the word ‘brandy’ was eliminated, and the

bookkeepers began to directly enter ‘so many clay jars from Pisco’. This is how

‘pisco’ began to refer to the Peruvian brandy in official documents. Later, in the

1820s, when the English traveler High visited Peru, he also reflected on the uses and

customs of the time, noting that a famous brandy was manufactured there that the

locals called by the name of the geographical region where it was produced, ‘Pisco’.

(Lacoste, La Vid)

It is paradoxical that the same researcher contradicted himself years later, stating: “So far the oldest

document found in Peru containing the word ‘Pisco’ to describe brandy dates from 1825. This

means that ‘pisco’ began to refer to grape distillate in Chile one hundred years before Peru”

(Lacoste, Origin). The evidence from the excerpt above refutes this notion; despite the author’s

personal interpretations, there is clear evidence that Pisco commonly referred to Peruvian brandy

in the 18th century.

10


Another recurring argument in Pisco Was Born in Chile is that Peru has not presented a

single historical document pre-dating 1824 that proves that Peruvian producers used the name

Pisco for brandy. Between 1791 and 1792, the Apostolic Preacher Fray Francisco Menéndez was

commissioned to carry out an expedition to Chiloé, in the extreme south of the Viceroyalty of Peru,

in what was called Laguna de Nahuelhuapi.

After his expedition, Menéndez wrote Diary to Discover the Nahuelhuapi Lagoon,

commissioned by the Viceroy of Peru, Francisco Gil y Lemus. The diary was republished more than

11
a hundred years later, in 1900, by the German researcher, Francisco Fonck. It was titled Travels

from Fray Francisco Menéndez to Nahuelhuapi4. Both publications confirm that Father Menéndez

returned to Lima on April 1, 1792 after discovering the lagoon. Two days later he met with Viceroy

Gil y Lemus to notify him of the expedition and to propose they establish a settlement in

Nahuelhuapi. However, the Viceroy declined and ordered they first do a reconnaissance of the area.

He instructed Menéndez to gather 100 men to accompany him in the exploration of the extreme

south of the continent, in what is currently the province of Río Negro, in the south of Argentina.

In 1792, Menéndez prepared a list of supplies necessary to sustain the 100 troops for the

expedition. Among the provisions that he and his assistant, Joseph Moreleda, transcribed were:

(text bolded for emphasis)

Supplies that must be taken from the Capital of Lima to avoid incidental expenses
in Chiloé:

Ninety quintals of sponge cake, 20 high-quality and the rest of regular quality

Twenty-four quintals of jerky

Twelve quintals of rice

Six quintals of lard

Sixty bushels of Huachu peppers

Two salt stones

Ten cooking pots large enough to fit food for 10 men

Six clay jars of Aguardiente from Pisco or Ica (Fonck 346)

4 Source located by F. Quirós, C. Azurín and C. Receunco

12


These references provide incontrovertible proof that in the eighteenth century, the consumption,

trade and the appellation of pisco, the brandy from Peru, were officially recognized.

Another documentation of Pisco appeared in 1712, more than 130 years after the

publication of the first map of Peru. Amédée Frézier, engineer of the intelligence corps of the

French Army, was commissioned under the guise of carrying out botanical and hydrographic

studies in South America. However, his true mission was to investigate possible coastal military

fortifications of the Spanish colonies of the Viceroyalty of Peru and the Captaincy General of Chile.

13
 After returning to Paris from South America in 1714, Frézier published A Voyage To The

South-Seas, and along the Coasts of Chile and Peru in the Years 1712, 1713 and 1714. The book

includes a series of maps depicting several ports and cities he visited. One of the most significant is

the map of the roadstead and town of Pisco, including the old town and winery, apparently where

they made wines and piscos, that were destroyed by a powerful earthquake in 1687. Frézier

describes the beverage trade in the port of Pisco in 1712:

Trading merchandise from Europe is not the only reason ships go to Pisco. They also

go there to stock up on wine and brandy, which is at a better price and in greater

quantity than in any other port, because they sell not only brandy from Pisco there,

but also from Yca and Chincha, located six leagues north of Pisco […] Instead of

wine, many Spaniards drink brandy. (Frézier 166)

14
It is clear that the word Pisco has existed in Peru for hundreds of years, first indicating a geographic

location and eventually evolving to mean brandy it the 17th century. On the contrary in Chile, there

was no evidence of the name until the 20th century in 1936, when the name of La Unión was

duplicitously changed to Pisco Elqui to mount the mala fide trade scheme.

Pisco in Chile and the War of the Pacific

The use of the name pisco to describe grape brandy emerged in Chile only after the War of

the Pacific (1879 - 1883), after Chilean troops occupied the cities of Pisco and Ica. War reports

prove that the invading troops recognized the prominence and quality of pisco in the area: “The

town of Ica has seven to eight thousand inhabitants; it is surrounded by farms dedicated especially

to the cultivation of vineyards that produce the famous pisco” (Boletín 877).

Furthermore, a Chilean industrialist, Olegario Alba Rivera, played a central role in

fomenting the use of the name “pisco” in Chile, as well as seeking to replicate the Peruvian spirit. As

explained in the Historical and Biographical Dictionary of Chile, 1800 - 1925, located by Engineer

Guillermo Toro Lira5, Mr. Olegario Alba Rivera observes:

Peru has become famous, and has earned billions of soles from the spirits produced

in the valleys of Pisco and Locumba [...], where the industrialist Mr. Olegario Alba

Rivera, from Paihuano, Elqui went to study the elaboration of pisco. In 1868, he

bought the property that today bears the name “Bella Sombra” (Beautiful Shadow)

and that has been the industrial cradle of Pisco Alba […] Mr. Olegario Alba Rivera

gained mastery of that industry in Peru, especially in Locumba, and founded the

pisco industry in Chile. (Historical)

5 See “Pisco in the 19th Century” by Guillermo Toro Lira for more insight on this subject.

15
These affirmations were corroborated by Mr. César Esquivel Castro, a Chilean writer who dedicated

a vast portion of his work to promoting and rescuing the traditions of the Elqui area. Before passing

away in 2014, Mr. Esquivel gave an interview on the television program Panorama, in which he

confirmed that Olegario Alva Rivera started the liquor production industry in the Elqui area, and

that he copied the denomination and production process from Peru. The interview can be viewed

on the Internet6.

6 You can watch the interview on the “Grupo Pisquero de Escandinavia” Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/GrupoPisqueroenEscandinavia/videos/366503633984498/

16
 Prohibition and Pisco

However, the purpose of this article is not to reiterate well-known arguments about the

origin of Pisco in Peru, but to reveal the process and motives that led Chilean authorities to

misappropriate a name belonging to a Peruvian city in 1936. Surprisingly, this change was not

provoked by a supposed sociocultural evolution resulting in a toponymic reference, as stated in the

University of Tarapacá magazine article and the book Pisco Was Born in Chile, but rather a potential

business opportunity and deceptive trade scheme.

17
 In January 1919, the 18th Constitutional Amendment was ratified in the United States,

bringing about the Volstead Act, which prohibited the production, sale, and transportation of all

"intoxicating liquor". This Amendment, known in popular culture as Prohibition, greatly limited

access to alcoholic beverages, while simultaneously fueling a powerful black market made of

smugglers and gangs, as well as the rise of dark fortunes made from the illegal trade of alcohol.

Prohibition ended 14 years later in December of 1933, when the United States Congress

approved the 21st Constitutional Amendment. With this Act, production, trade and consumption of

alcoholic beverages became legal again in the United States.

Meanwhile in Chile, Executive Order No. 1817 was issued in May 1931, which reserved the

name “pisco” for spirits originating from the distillation of grape musts within the departments of

Copiapó, Huasco, La Serena, Elqui, and the department of Ovalle, in the area that extends north of

7 It is called “Decree with Force of Law”, since it was issued by the Executive Power during the government of General Carlos Ibañez del Campo, without a
parliamentary debate, since the president had ordered the closure of the sessions of Congress.

18
the Limarí, Grande and Rapel rivers. The order prohibited the use of the name pisco of any spirit

not made exclusively by the distillation of grapes from the areas indicated above (Cadenas Mujica).

Some researchers have attempted to assign the area described above an appellation of

origin, claiming it is "the first appellation of origin in America” (Cadenas Mujica) but clearly it does

not meet the minimum requirements to do so. That is, the name does not refer to a product from a

specific geographical area; it does not specify whether the product has a certain quality,

characteristics or reputation linking it to its designated geographic area, nor does it detail the

human and natural factors that differentiate it from products from other areas.

The Chilean law of 1931 is what is known in intellectual property law as an “indication of

source”8, which is rather generic in nature (Álvarez Enríquez 100). It palpably lacks the essential

geographical reference required to use the word “pisco”, as noted in the aforementioned article,

since there was no city, port, river or any geographical feature in Chile named Pisco.

However, the approval of that Decree with Force in 1931 would have violated a norm of

international law approved a few years earlier at a conference in Washington. On February 20,

1929, the representatives of 19 countries, including the United States, Chile and Peru, signed the

"General Inter-American Convention for Trademark and Commercial Protection". The Convention

accorded various matters, but Chapter V (Art. 23 to Art. 28) specifically addressed the following:

(text bolded for emphasis)

Article 23

Every indication of geographical origin or sources which does not actually

correspond to the place in which the article product or merchandise was

fabricated, manufactured, produced or harvested, shall be considered

fraudulent and illegal, and therefore prohibited.

8 See Mentira al descubierto: Chile no declaró Denominación de Origen en 1931, by Manuel Cádenas Mujica y Enrique Luque-Vásquez in “La Yema del
Gusto”:https://www.layemadelgusto.com/mentira-al-descubierto-chile-no-declaro-denominacion-de-origen-pisco-en-1931/

19


Article 24

For the purpose of this convention the place of geographical origin or source shall

be considered as indicated when the geographical name of a definite locality,

region, country or nation, either expressly and directly, or indirectly, appears on

any trademark, label, cover, packing or wrapping, of any article, product or

merchandise, directly or indirectly thereon, provided that said geographical name

serves as a basis for or is the dominant element of the sentences, words or

expressions used.

Article 26

The indication of the place or geographical origin or source, affixed to or

stamped upon the product or merchandise, must correspond exactly to the place

in which the product or merchandise has been fabricated, manufactured or

harvested.

This norm was accepted without caveats by all the signatories, but Chile. Chilean delegate Oscar

Blanco Vial included the following disclaimer next to his signature: "I sign this Convention insofar

as its provisions are not contrary to the national legislation of my country, making express

reservation of the provisions of this Convention on which there is no legislation in Chile". The last

sentence of his disclaimer is particularly noteworthy, as it seems to imply that before 1931, the

appropriation of the Peruvian geographical name Pisco was being planned.

When the 21st Amendment was ratified in the U.S., it ended the increasingly unpopular

prohibition of alcohol. Hoping to seize new business opportunities, Peru began to negotiate an

20
agreement with the US, one of its most important trading partners. The goal was to create better

access for Peruvian exports by resuming the important flow of goods, including pisco that arrived

before Prohibition, especially to California”9.

By that time, there were official references in the United States about the origin and quality

of pisco from Peru. In 1925, W.E. Dunn, a commercial attaché to the US embassy in Peru, prepared

an extensive report on the Peruvian economy for the Department of Commerce. The report notes

that “Much of the brandy known as 'pisco' is actually produced in the Ica Valley, and it is called that

because it is exported through the port with the same name” (Dargent Chamot 137).

The Embassy of Peru in the United States Takes Action

On May 1, 1934, the Peruvian ambassador to the United States, Manuel de Freyre y

Santander, who was previously the Peruvian representative in the plebiscite of Tacna and Arica

between 1925 and 1926, presented a diplomatic note to the Secretary of State of the United States,

Cordell Hull, on the trade status between Peru and the United States.

9 See “Exportación de aguardiente de Pisco a California, en “Pisco en el Siglo XIX: Periódicos, Manuscritos, Memorias y Exhibiciones Internacionales”
Guillermo Toro-Lira Stahl in El Pisco y su Vigencia.

21
 This correspondence was accompanied by a detailed report from the Commissioner General

of Customs of Peru in Washington, Mr. Jorge Chamot Arróspide, who expressed the need to support

lower tariffs for Peruvian exports. In addition, Mr. Chamot Arróspide addressed the situation

developing in the United States, expressing concern that alcoholic beverages called “pisco” that

weren’t of Peruvian origin were entering the US market. The diplomatic note10 from the Peruvian

embassy of May 1934 communicated:

Peru is currently producing more than 12,000,000 liters of wine and 3,500,000

liters of grape brandy known as “pisco”. It is expected that Peru will obtain a share

of the total imports of wines and spirits, with the guarantee that the commercial

name of the spirit will be protected. In this regard, it should be taken into account

that spirits imported from other countries are using the denomination "pisco",

which is an exclusively Peruvian product. The only genuine “pisco" is produced in an

area around the port of Pisco in Peru.

After this explicit defense of its national beverage, Peru considered it necessary to present a

detailed memorandum in the United States that would specify pisco’s characteristics. On August 3,

10 Nota Diplomática de la Embajada del Perú en los Estados Unidos al Departamento de Estado, 1° de mayo de

1934. Pag. 6. RG 59, Department of State, decimal file 1930-1939, Box 3106.

22
1934, the Peruvian ambassador in Washington, Manuel de Freyre y Santander, sent a new

diplomatic note11 to the Secretary of State of the United States, requesting it be dispersed to the

corresponding authorities of the North American government (De Freyre y Santander August).

The memorandum was sent by the Agriculture Division of the Ministry of Development and

Public Works in Peru. It detailed the geographical region of Pisco, the types of pisco (single-variety

and aromatic), their respective flavor profiles and the production process. In addition, it

emphasized that the Pisco Punch, made with Pisco from Peru, had been widely acclaimed, especially

on the West Coast of the United States, before Prohibition.

Note from the Peruvian Embassy, August 3rd, 1934

11 Nota Diplomática del Embajador del Perú al Secretario de Estado de los Estados Unidos. 3 de agosto de

1934. RG 59, Department of State, decimal file 1930-1939, Box 3106

23
 Furthermore, the report highlighted that in the 8 months since Prohibition had been

repealed, a spirit called pisco had been used in commerce in the United States, but it was not a

Peruvian product, not made from the grape varieties from the Pisco region in Peru, nor was it made

using the specified production methods for pisco. This explicitly implied that a counterfeit had

replaced the original product. Concluding that pisco held an "Authentication of Origin", the report

stated that the term pisco, of “any type or classification should be reserved exclusively for products

that came from the Pisco region in Peru".

Undoubtedly, the report presented by the Peruvian Embassy caused a stir in the US

government. Consequently, the Secretary of State consulted the Departments of Agriculture, the

Treasury, and the recently-created Federal Alcohol Control Administration. The Department of

Agriculture responded that it was evaluating whether or not Pisco from Peru had distinguishable

characteristics that could differentiate it from beverages produced in other places.

The US Treasury responded that the decision was out of its jurisdiction and that the

Peruvian Embassy’s concerns should be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal

Alcohol Control Administration.

24


However, the response from the Federal Alcohol Control Administration clarified the

situation. This division sided with Peru, referencing the Regulation on Misleading and False

Advertising Labeling of Spirits published on May 13, 1935. The following is an excerpt from section

21, Class 8, “Geographical Designations”:

Geographical names, which are not names of distinctive types of distilled spirits and

that have not become generic, shall not be applied to distilled spirits that have

been produced in any other place than the particular place or region indicated

in the name. The following are examples of geographical names for distilled spirits

that are

not generic and are not names for distinctive types of distilled spirits: Cognac,

Armagnac, Greek Brandy, Pisco Brandy, Jamaica Rum, Kentucky Straight, Bourbon

Whiskey, Maryland Straight Rye Whiskey. (9)

25


The US legislation settled the issue, indicating that geographical names that belong to a certain

country should not be misleadingly used. More specifically, it used pisco from Peru as an example.

However, despite the concise guidelines on the misleading use of geographic names, Chilean

exporters continued to push for their brandy to enter the United States using the name pisco.

Moreover, the Chilean Embassy in Washington had been lobbying before the Federal

Administration of Alcohol Control, asking them to reconsider their position and allow the name

pisco to be applied to spirits made in both Peru and Chile.

At the end of November 1935, upon learning of the efforts of the Chilean campaign, the

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Carlos Concha, instructed Ambassador de Freyre y Santander in

the United States to:

Appear before the corresponding administrative authority in Washington to prove

that pisco, as its name indicates, is a unique product manufactured in southern Peru,

and that trying to protect other spirits of various origins with its brand would be the

same as accepting that cognac, an exclusively French product, can be attributed to

different nationalities. (Concha)

In response, the Peruvian ambassador informed the Peruvian Foreign Ministry at the beginning of

December 1935 of the steps taken in Washington. In his report, Ambassador de Freyre y Santander

reported that the Chilean Embassy “stated before the Alcohol Administration that the Chilean grape

brandy did not differ from the Peruvian and that Chilean producers sent their spirits to Peru so that

they could be exported to the United States under the name pisco”. To this assertion, the authorities

in the United States responded that these facts could not be invoked as an argument.

In the report it is noted that the Peruvian embassy had made arrangements with the head of

the Federal Alcohol Control Administration, Mr. Franklin C. Hoyt, to ensure that the Administration

26
would stay in favor of Peruvian producers’ right of exclusive use of the name pisco. In response to

the concerns raised, Mr. Hoyt responded that his Administration considered Pisco a geographical

name. He also stated that the Chilean Embassy requested that it be declared a generic name, but

from his understanding, there was no intention of accepting that request. The United States’

acceptance of Peru's rights over the pisco appellation based on geographical reference was a

devastating commercial defeat for Chilean exporters, who filed a claim with the political authorities

of the Chilean spirit’s production area.

The quality and prestige of Pisco was also reflected in 1936 in a report sent by the

Commercial Attaché of the United States Embassy in Peru, Julian Greenup, who pointed out that

“Pisco is the Peruvian brandy ‘par excellence’ and that it is even famous outside of Peru. High-

quality pisco is comparable to the best spirits in the world” (Informes). Mr Greenup added a table of

Peruvian exports of the grape spirit to his report, which clearly showed that in 1934 the main

importers of the Peruvian drink were the United States and Ecuador. Chile also imported the spirit

from Peru in more modest quantities.

27


The Deception of Chilean Congressman Gabriel González Videla

One of the most prominent Chilean political figures at that time was Congressman Gabriel

González Videla. Between 1931 and 1937, he was president of the Radical Party. He then became

Chile's ambassador to France, Belgium and Luxembourg. In 1939, he was assigned as ambassador

to Portugal. In 1942, after declining the presidential candidacy for his party, González Videla was

appointed ambassador to Brazil, where he remained until 1945. In 1946 he was nominated for the

Presidency of the Republic. The congressman triumphed in the elections, but didn’t win with an

absolute majority, so his victory was ratified by Congress. However, in the congressional elections

on October 24, 1946, he received 136 votes and won the presidency, defeating his rival Eduardo

Cruz-Coke, who obtained only 46 votes. González Videla ruled Chile between November 1946 and

November 1952.

In 1936, as representative for La Serena, Elqui, Ovalle and Illapel, González Videla faced

immense pressure to open trade channels with the US for the Chilean brandy called pisco.

28
However, he would first have to respond to the United States’ rejection of Chilean pisco. To do so,

González Videla presented a bill to change the name of the town of "La Unión" to "Pisco-Elqui" to

create the geographical reference that was required by the US in order to use the name.

The decision to change the name was not related to a socio-cultural evolution, as argued by

some academics, but rather was a misleading mala fide commercial scheme hastily assembled in

December 1935, when the US authorities ratified the protected denomination of pisco from Peru,

and ending in January 1936, when the deceitful name was approved in Chile. The usurpation of the

Peruvian name was unprecedented in the history of protected denominations for spirits. It is

preposterous that legal protection was awarded to a beverage whose required geographical

reference was not falsely created until five years later, after the issue of the protection. To prove

that this theory is not mere academic speculation, one can evaluate Gabriel González Videla’s

memoir, where he discusses his role in the name change:

When I was congressman, I had to defend the importation of Chilean pisco into the

United States objected by the Government of Peru, because it was a product of

exclusive origin from the Pisco region of Peru….it occurred to me as

congressman for that area, to present a bill that was quickly approved, by which I

gave the name Pisco Elqui to a small town in that region called La Unión. And so

Chilean pisco had free entry into the United States. (González Videla 1158)

29


Furthermore, regarding the debate on the law to change the name from La Unión to Pisco Elqui,

Congressman González Videla stated that:

The Government of Peru, using international treaties with North America as a

precedent, is prohibiting Chilean producers from using the word “pisco”

in Central and South America, based on the fact that they have the right to this name,

for having the Port of Pisco in Peru. According to international trade treaties, proper

30
 names of regions, cities or provinces where there are identical or similar accredited

products, cannot be used.

This is a serious obstacle for pisco exporters.

What all producers in the Pisco region of Coquimbo are asking, [is] that a town in

this province be given the name Pisco de Elqui, in order to circumvent these

restrictions in the United States and Central America. (Cámara)

There is a legal axiom that states "When there's a confession, you need no proof". This example

epitomizes this saying; González Videla confessed to taking these hasty measures to ensure Chilean

pisco had free entry into the United States. He also acknowledged that pisco was a product of

exclusive origin from Peru, but the bill was still quickly approved without further debate. Perhaps

he offered no explanation because the sole reason for the name change was to campaign for the

entry of the Chilean product into the United States.

However, not all Elquinos agreed with this cursory, unscrupulous and arbitrary name

change. Gabriela Mistral, the acclaimed Chilean poet, winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Literature,

was born in Vicuña, a town near La Unión. In her work, "Thinking of Chile: a Tentative Attempt

Against the Impossible" she wrote:

Naturally I will never use the name Pisco-Elqui for La Unión, a sad occurrence of

some coquimbano who wanted to mock the beautiful town. Some day we have to

give back its name that refers to the confluence of the two rivers. I know that in

certain houses they celebrated, danced and sang that foreign ruling and I was happy

to hear it, but with a joy of bitter touch. (Mistral 360)

31


Despite González Videla's deceptive maneuver, the prestige of pisco from Peru was still recognized

in the United States, even beyond the West Coast, where it was highly demanded before

Prohibition. Irrefutable proof of this is a newspaper clipping from 1937, “Why Embassies are

Popular”, discovered by Engineer Guillermo Toro Lira, which describes the cocktails that

symbolized different embassies in Washington. It clearly states that Scotch Whiskey and soda was

the favorite of the diplomats, dry Martinis were served at the Brazilian embassy, cocktails with rum

typified the Dominican Legation, the Whiskey Sours served in small silver glasses were attributed

to the Chilean embassy, Pisco was the Peruvian specialty and Mavrodaphne wine belonged to the

Greeks.

The most important ruling in favor of protecting Peru’s geographical indication12 for pisco

was resolved on November 29, 2018 at the Intellectual Property Appeals Council in India. In this

legal dispute, representatives of several Chilean spirits companies opposed the registration of the

geographical indication for Peru. They argued it should only be allowed if the word “Peruvian” was

added to the registration, which would allow them to label their brandy as "Chilean pisco".

12 The geographical indication is the legal category that protects the D.O. for spirits in many countries. It was adopted multilaterally
from the 1994 “Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights” within the framework of the World Trade
Organization.

32
 Peru took the case to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, citing the distinctly

Peruvian origin of the denomination, as well as the mala fide name change of the town of La Unión

in Chile in 1936 that deceptively created a toponymic reference. The Order approved by the

Appellate Board was momentous; India recognized the Peruvian Denomination of Origin and

declared “pisco” belonged to Peru. Number 23 of said order states:

It has been documented that the word pisco is undoubtedly a denomination of

origin exclusively from Peru. Since colonial times, the name Pisco has been used for

a river, port and city on the coast of Peru. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that,

according to the political-legal division of Peru, the Pisco district has existed as such

since Peru became an independent republic in 1821 and was elevated to the

category of province by law of the Congress of 13 October 1900, as published in the

official newspaper "El Peruano" on October 30, 1930. The relationship between

pisco, Peruvian geography and place names is therefore indisputable. The Pisco

brandy, a traditional drink from Peru, is a distinctive product around the world that

possesses the quality of a long-standing lineage with its own roots. The origin of the

name pisco is undoubtedly Peruvian, as has been proven by a study carried out by

lexicographers, chroniclers and historians. The word comes from pre-Hispanic

Quechua and means ‘bird’.

The so-called Chilean region of Pisco-Elqui has misappropriated the Peruvian name

“Pisco”. In 1936, the authorities duplicitously renamed a town that was known as

La Unión for hundreds of years. The sole objective of this was to create a geographic

link between that region and the Chilean liquor produced in it.

33


The international recognition of Pisco from Peru is indisputable. Whenever the

Denomination of Origin for Pisco from Peru has been questioned, the facts speak for themselves.

Pisco’s geographical origin, as well as its name, trajectory, reputation and quality have been, are

and always will be exclusively Peruvian.

34
 Works Cited

Álvarez Enríquez, Carmen Paz. Derechos Del Vino: Denominaciones De Origen. Editorial Jurídica De
Chile, 2001.

Bello, Andrés. Boletín De La Guerra Del Pacífico 1879-1881. 1979.

Boletín De Las Leyes i Decretos Del Gobierno [Law Bulletin of Chile]. Imprenta Nacional, 1936, p. 307.

Cadenas Mujica, Manuel, and Enrique Luque-Vásquez. “Mentira Al Descubierto: Chile No Declaró
Denominación De Origen Pisco En 1931.” LYG, 13 Apr. 2018, layemadelgusto.com/mentira-al-
descubierto-chile-no-declaro-denominacion-de-origen-pisco-en-1931/.

Cámara De Diputados Del Congreso de Chile, Sesión extraordinaria el martes 10 de diciembre de
1935. Session 21A, report 21A, p. 1351.

Central Court for International Intellectual and Commercial Property of Thailand. Mar. 2019. In
Annex 10, Pablo Lacoste acted as a Chilean expert in the case in a document titled "Origin
and Identity of Chilean pisco".

Concha, Carlos. “Diplomatic Note from the Minister of Foreign Relations in Peru.” Received by
Peruvian Ambassador in the USA De Freyre y Santander, 21 Nov. 1935.

Dargent Chamot, Eduardo. Vino y Pisco En La Historia Del Perú. Universidad De San Martín De
Porres, 2013.

De Freyre y Santander, Manuel. “Diplomatic Note from the Peruvian Embassy in the USA to the
Minister of Foreign Relations in Peru.” Received by Minister Carlos Concha, 2 December 1935,
Peru.

De Freyre y Santander, Manuel. “Diplomatic Note from the Peruvian Embassy to the State
Department.” Received by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, USA, 3 August 1934, USA.

De Freyre y Santander, Manuel. “Diplomatic Note from the Peruvian Embassy to the State
Department.” Received by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, USA, 1 May 1934, USA.

Diccionario histórico, biográfico y bibliográfico de Chile, 1800-1931.

“En Homenaje a César Esquivel Castro Destacado Escritor De Paihuano, Chile.” Panaroma, 2014,
www.facebook.com/watch/?v=366503633984498.

Fonck, Francisco. Viajes De Fray Francisco Menendez a Nahuelhuapi: Publicados i Comentados.
Niemeyer En Comm., 1900.

Frézier, Amédée-François. Relation du Voyage de la Mer du Sud aux côtes du Chily et du Pérou [A
Voyage To The South-Seas, and Along the Coasts of Chile and Peru in the Years 1712, 1713 and
1714].

González Videla, Gabriel. “Memorias” Editora Nacional Gabriela Mistral, Ltd, Santiago de Chile,
1975, pages 1158- 1159.

35

Gutiérrez, Gonzalo. “El Pisco No Nació En Chile” [Pisco Wasn’t Born in Chile]. El Pisco y Su Vigencia,
Eufonia, 2018, pp. 67–76.

Informes de los Agregados Comerciales [Reports from Commercial Attachés], 151, Entry E 14, Box 396,
Archivo General de la Nación. Lima, Peru.

Lacoste, P., et al. Idesia- Universidad De Tarapacá. Facultad De Ciencias Agronómicas [University of
Tarapacá. Faculty of Agronomy]. Aug. 2014, pp. 31–42.

Lacoste, Pablo et al. El Pisco nació en Chile, Génesis de la primera Denominación de Origen de América
[Pisco Was Born in Chile; Birth of the First Denomination or Origin of America]. RIL Editores,
2016.

Lacoste, Pablo. “La Vid y El Vino En América Del Sur: El Desplazamiento De Los Polos Vitivinícolas
(Siglos XVI Al XX) .” Revista Universum , 2004, pp. 62–93.

Mistral, Gabriela, et al. Gabriela Mistral: Pensando a Chile: Una Tentativa Contra Lo Imposible.
Presidencia De La República, Comisión Bicentenario, 2004.

Pago del Diezmo en Pisco [Tithe Payment in Pisco], 1680. Box 10, Folder 449. C-GO2, Archivo
General de la Nación. Lima, Peru.

Pago del Diezmo en Pisco [Tithe Payment in Pisco], 1750. C7- 763-428, Archivo General de la
Nación. Lima, Peru.

“Plan De La Rade De Pisco, Située à La Côte Du Pérou Par 13d 40´ De Latitude Australe.” John Carter
Brown Map Collection, Brown University, pp. File 09228–018.

Poma de Ayala, Guamán. El primer nueva corónica y Buen Gobierno [The First New Chronicle and
Good Government]. 1615.

Regulation on Misleading and False Advertising Labeling of Spirits published on May 13, 1935.

Sánchez, Cesibell. El Pisco y Su Vigencia. Eufonia, 2018.

Toro-Lira Stahl, Guillermo. “Exportación De Aguardiente De Pisco a California, En ‘Pisco En El Siglo
XIX: Periódicos, Manuscritos, Memorias y Exhibiciones Internacionales.” El Pisco y Su
Vigencia, edited by Cesibell Sánchez, Eufonia, 2018.

Toro-Lira Stahl, Guillermo. “Pisco En El Siglo XIX – Continuación: El Faro De Pisco.” Pisco, Sus
Historias y Tradiciones, 12 Aug. 2020, piscopunch.com/2020/04/23/faropisco/

“Why Embassies Are Popular.” Carroll Daily Herald, 26 Feb. 1937.

36