[expand]
The Challenge:
At the appropriate moment during the feast (after initial serving, when substantial food had been distributed), someone—usually the host or a senior warrior—would announce: “Let the hero’s portion be claimed.”
Warriors who believed themselves worthy would stand, stating their achievements: “I claim the hero’s portion. I have killed twenty men in single combat. I defeated the champion of the northern tribe. I defended the ford against overwhelming odds.”
This was not private boasting but public testimony, required to be truthful (lies would be challenged immediately), and subject to verification through witnesses.
The Counter-Claim:
If another warrior believed his achievements superior, he would stand and challenge: “Your deeds are notable, but mine surpass them. I have killed thirty men. I defeated not one but three champions. I held the ford for three days.”
This could continue—multiple warriors stating their cases, each trying to establish the superior claim through recitation of victories, demonstrations of scars, presentation of trophies (including severed heads).
The Judgment:
In ideal circumstances, the assembled warriors would reach consensus—acknowledging one claimant’s obvious superiority, withdrawing counter-claims, allowing the portion to be awarded without violence.
But consensus was not guaranteed. If claims were equally strong, if honor was at stake, if warriors refused to concede—the dispute could escalate.
The Combat:
If verbal contest failed to resolve the question, physical combat settled it. The claimants would fight—sometimes to first blood, sometimes to submission, occasionally to death.
This was not lawless brawling but formalized duel, governed by rules, witnessed by the community, producing binding result. The victor received the portion. The defeated accepted their subordinate status—or died trying to dispute it.
[/expand]