FORFEIT REDEMPTION IN LATVIAN FOLKLORIC CHOREOGRAPHIC MATERIALS: THE ASPECT OF PUNITIVE MECHANISMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55877/kkmp.2026.1.683Keywords:
forfeit redemption, punishment, game, ALFAbstract
Forfeit redemption in the Archives of Latvian Folklore (ALF) is classified as a subcategory of choreographic materials, characterized by punitive parameters applied in cases where game rules are violated and players are consequently subject to punishment. Although there is research of choreographic folklore (Elīna Gailīte, Rita Spalva (1953–2025), Harijs Sūna (1923–1999), Elza Siliņa (1895–1989) and others), but their research has primarily focused on plays and dances, while the phenomenon of forfeit redemption has not been particularly studied.
This article is devoted to an analysis of the phenomenon of forfeit redemption in Latvian folklore, based on choreographic materials covering the period from 1920 to 2006.
Two typological approaches to forfeit redemption can be identified: Prinduļu Pauls’s division into two groups (forfeits involving kissing and forfeits without kissing) and the ALF classification into ten categories according to the form of forfeit redemption. The task of the article is to interpret and typologize the forfeit redemption materials found in the ALF, with particular attention to the aspect of punishment.
It is concluded that forfeit redemption functions as a symbolic mechanism of social control, triggered by rule violations and supporting internal game order. Its fragmentary documentation and lack of context limit unequivocal interpretation, as meanings are situational and linked to cultural context and participants’ perceptions.
Downloads
References
Brewster, P. G. (1948). Forfeit Games from Greece and Czechoslovakia. Hoosier Folklore, 7 (3).
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, Play, and Games. Urbana, Chicago: The University of Illinois Press.
Chen, Y. (2023). Cyber Discipline: How Roguelite Games Engage Players – A Perspective from Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. Pieejams: https://lnep.ewapub.com/article/view/1542 (skatīts 01.02.2026.).
Dzērves, LFK 474, 23.
Fuko, M. (2001). Uzraudzīt un sodīt: cietuma rašanās. Rīga: Omnia mea.
Huizinga, J. (1964). Homo ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: The Beacon Press.
Juul, J. (2000). Your Competent Child: Toward New Basic Values for the Family. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kas ziemā nesalst un vasarā neizkūst, LFK 1968, 1234.
Ķiršus plūkt, LFK 1955, 265.
Ķiršus plūkt, LFK 1168, 1942.
Ķiršus plūkt, LFK 1968, 813.
Latviešu folkloras krātuve (b. d.). Žanru rādītājs. Pieejams: https://lfk.lv/krajums/zanru-ra-ditajs (skatīts 01.02.2026).
Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca. 4. sējums (1980). Rīga: Zinātne.
Mironi bučot, LFK 4, 67.
Piparus liek sagrūzt, LFK 647, 1365.
Prindulis, P. (1913). Jaunākais un pilnīgākais rotaļnieks. 75 rotaļas, uzvedamas laukā, mājā un saviesībās. Rīga: A. Stalaša grāmatu tirgotavas ģenerālkomisija.
Rulliņa, V. (1969). Soli pa solim. Bradford, Yorks., England: the Latvian Printers, Omega Press, Mansfield, Notts.
Skurstenī skatīties, LFK 1960, 523.
Spelti apgriezt, LFK 1935, 6024.
Sūna, H. (1988). Latviešu tautas horeogrāfijas senākās – tradicionālās norises. No: J. Darbiniece (red.). Pasaules skatījuma poētiskā atveide folklorā. Rīga: Zinātne. Sūna, H. (1991). Latviešu sadzīves horeogrāfija. Rīga: Zinātne.
Šuvajevs, I. (2025). Sociālā ētika. Nacionālā enciklopēdija. Pieejams: https://enciklopedija.lv/skirklis/181834-soci%C4%81l%C4%81-%C4%93tika (skatīts 01.02.2026.).
Telefona vilkšana, LFK 1600, 24677.
Turner, V. (1966). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Uz torņa sēdēt, LFK 207, 504.
Vīksna, M. (1992). Lapas Mārtiņš un folklora. No: J. Darbiniece (red.). Latviešu folklora: tradicionālais un mainīgais. Rīga: Zinātne.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Krustpunkti: kultūras un mākslas pētījumi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.