This pattern of an elite warrior stepping forward to take on a chal-
lenger is found in centralized political systems but gives way under pressure
of intensifying warfare. The next example, from a chiefdom-level society,
took place in northeastern North America between the Iroquois and their
enemies the Algonquins. Prior to 1609, these Native Americans wore body
armor, carried shields, and fought with bows and arrows. The opposing
sides formed two lines in the open; war chiefs would advance in front of
their lines and challenge each other. Samuel de Champlain, the French ex-
plorer, was with the Algonquins; he recounts his reaction to the encounter:
“Our Indians put me ahead some twenty yards, and I marched on until I
was within thirty yards of the enemy, who as soon as they caught sight of
me halted and gazed at me and I at them. When I saw them make a move
to draw their bows upon us, I took aim with my arquebus and shot straight
at one of the three chiefs, and with this shot two fell to the ground and one
of their companions was wounded who died thereof a little later. I had put
four bullets into my arquebus” (Otterbein 1994, 5). Iroquois dueling came,
thus, to an abrupt end. Iroquois and Huron campaigns and battles in the
next forty years provide no examples of dueling.
Zulu “dueling battles” also ceased as warfare intensified. As the Zulu
evolved into a chiefdom and then a state, a remarkable elite warrior, Shaka,
devised a new weapon and new tactics in approximately 1810. He replaced
his javelins with a short, broad-bladed stabbing spear, retained his shield,
but discarded his sandals in order to gain greater mobility. By rushing upon
his opponent he was able to use his shield to hook away his enemy’s shield,
thus exposing the warrior’s left side to a spear thrust. Shaka also changed
military tactics by arranging the soldiers in his command—a company of
about 100 men—into a close-order, shield-to-shield formation with two
“horns” designed to encircle the enemy. Shaka’s killing of an enemy warrior
with a new weapon and a new tactic brought an end to Zulu duels.
In the ancient Middle East (Middle Bronze Age, 2100 to 1570 B.C.), Se-
mitic tribes of Palestine and Syria had individual combat “between two war-
rior-heroes, as representatives of two contending forces. Its outcome, under
prearranged agreement between both sides, determined the issue between
the two forces” (Yadin 1963, 72). Although Yadin refers to these contests as
duels, the combatants were not equipped the same. In the example given, the
Egyptian man who was living with the Semites had a bow and arrow and a
sword; he practiced with both before the “duel.” The enemy warrior had a
shield, battle-ax, and javelins. The javelins missed, but the arrows found
their mark, the neck. The Egyptian killed his opponent with his own battle-
ax. Duels of this nature continued to be fought as the tribes developed into
centralized political systems. In the most famous duel of all—approximately
3,000 years ago—the First Book of Samuel tells us that Goliath, a Philistine,
Dueling 103