The scientific response to an unexplained observation — asking what could cause this, proposing hypotheses, testing those hypotheses — is exactly how the discovery unfolded.

The hypothesis that the wear was caused by holding round objects in the mouth led to the identification of betel nuts as the most plausible candidate.

The decision to test this hypothesis chemically — looking for arecoline in the dental tissue — required both the hypothesis and the analytical capacity to test it.

The experimental pharmacology confirmed that the behavior could have produced the drug effect.

This process — from unexplained observation to tested hypothesis to confirmed conclusion — is a model for how scientific discovery works in archaeological chemistry.