Economic Botany

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 26–30 | Cite as

Pistic, traditional food from Western Friuli, N.E. Italy

  • Maurizio G. Paoletti
  • A. L. Dreon
  • G. G. Lorenzoni
Article

Abstract

Western Friuli, Italy, there is a small area near the town of Pordenone where an ancient rite of spring is still carried out. This is the preparation of a special dish, known as “pistic,” a collection of 56wild herbaceous meadow and wood plants which are boiled and then sautéed together. This practice is still alive in a few areas of Friuli today and possibly goes back to pre-Roman Celtic cultures in this part of Friuli. The number of herbaceous plants used in this dish is extraordinarily high (56), especially when compared to the low number normally used in other conventional dishes. “Pistic” is therefore important, not only because it represents a quantitatively high use of wild herbs in the diet of the rural population, but also because it reflects environmental awareness, in that the archaic method of naming, identifying and using these plants still exists today. Similar rural practices include the use of “pot herbs” in Great Britain and in France the cooking of “mesclun.”

Key Words

edible weeds Friuli northeastern Italy pre-Roman food preparation Celtic culture 

Le Pistic, un plat traditionnel de l’ouest du Frioule (Nord-est de l’ltalie), fait á partir de plus de cinquante plantes sauvages

Résumé

Dans le Val Colvera, dans louest de Frioule, au nord-est de lltalie, il existe une petite région, prés de la ville de Pordenone oú un ancien rituel printanier a toujours cours. Il sagit de la préparation dun plat spécial, connu sous le nom del “Pistic,” á base de 56 especes herbacées sauvages des prés et des bois, qui sont bouillies, puis rissolées ensemble. Cette pratique est toujours vivante dans quelques régions du Frioule et il est possible de la retrouver jusque dans les cultures celtique, pre-romaines, qui une et des actives dans cette partie du Frioule. Le nombre despéces herbacées utilisées est exceptionnellement élevé (56), spécialement quand on le compare au nombre normalement bas despéces utilisées dans dautres plats. Le Pistic est done important, non seulement parce quil représente un usage important dherbes sauvages dans le régime des populations rurales, mais aussi parce que la nomenclature archaïque, utilisée encore actuellement pour identifier ces plantes est toujours en usage, refléte une sensibilité a lenvironment.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Alarcon Gallegos, R. 1988. Etnobotanica de los Quinchuas de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana. Miscellaneous Antropologica Ecuatoriana, 7:1–178.Google Scholar
  2. Altieri, M. A., and L. C. Merrick, 1988. Agroecology and in situ conservation of native crop diversity in the third world. Pages 361–369in E. O. Wilson, ed., Biodiversity, Nat. Ac. Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  3. Corbetta, F. 1991. Piante spontanee mangerecce. Edagricole, Bologna.Google Scholar
  4. Costantini, G. 1941. Litún e Lidún, erbucce primaverili mangerecce nella tradizione popolare fnulana. Rivista “Lares”, Roma.Google Scholar
  5. De Rougement, G. 1990. Guida delle piante utili, le piante coltivate ad uso commerciale in Europa. Franco Muzzio, ed., Padova.Google Scholar
  6. Kruta, V. 1986. I Celti Occidental, De Agostini ed., Novara.Google Scholar
  7. Mansuelli, G. A. 1978. Le fonti storiche sui Celti Cisalpini. Pages 71–75in Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma, I Galli e l’ltalia. De Luca ed., Roma.Google Scholar
  8. Paoletti, M. G., D. Pimentel, B. R. Stinner, and D. Stinner. 1992. Agroecosystems biodiversity: matching production and conservation biology. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 40:3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Paoletti, M. G., and D. Pimentel. 1992. Biotic diversity in agroecosystems. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Pellegrini, G. B., and A. Zamboni. 1982. Flora popolare Fríulana. Casamassima ed., Udine.Google Scholar
  11. Pignatti, S. 1982. Flora d’ltalia. Edagricole, Bologna.Google Scholar
  12. Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, energy and society. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  13. Piovan, C. 1986. Comensi, Etruschi e Celti: le ragioni di una mostra. Pages 11–15in Societá Archeologica Comense, Como fra Etruschi e Celti. La cittá preromana e il suo ruolo commerciale, Como.Google Scholar
  14. Reid W. V., and K. R. Miller, 1989. Keeping options alive. The scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Rieppi, A. 1941. Piante mangerecce spontanee del Friuli. Comitato Nazionale Forestale.Google Scholar
  16. Vitri, S. 1990. Indagini recenti nei complessi archeologici protostorici e dell’etá della romanizzazione. Pages 177–192in G. Bandelli, S. Corazza, S. Crevatin, F. Fontana, S. Pettarin, C. Tirone, and S. Vitri, eds., Montereale fra protostoria e storia. Contributi preliminari. Biblioteca Civica di Montereale Val Cellina.Google Scholar
  17. Williams, J. T. 1988. Identifying and protecting the origin of our food plants. Pages 240–247in E. O. Wilson, ed., Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  18. Zangheri, P. 1976. Flora italica. CEDAM, Padova.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio G. Paoletti
    • 1
  • A. L. Dreon
    • 1
  • G. G. Lorenzoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di BiologiaUniversita Degli Studi di PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations