Conclusion

We have now sufficiently covered the whole area in which betel-chewing can be called an established custom. Its further spread has been checked by various factors. The first of these is botanical. The necessary ingredients can be produced only in latitudes and altitudes favourable to the cultivation of the areca-palm and the betel-vine.

Another factor to be considered is that in most countries the betel-vine requires expert attention, and is not a plant which could be properly cultivated by such primitive people, say, as the aborigines of Australia.

Then, there is the question of a rival narcotic. It is obvious, I think, that the custom of betel-chewing would have long since spread all over China had not opium, introduced from Asia Minor, already obtained such a strong influence over the people.

In localities where betel-chewing and kava -drinking meet, we are presented with an anthropological problem, which, as yet, has been only partially studied.

In the above pages I have paid but little attention to the agricultural side of the areca-nut and betel-vine. This side of the question does not concern our inquiry, but the references given below may be of use to readers interested in the subject.^[1]

Sufficient, I think, has been said to justify my original contention that betel-chewing holds a unique place among the customs of the world. The only other article that one could possibly suggest as its rival is the Virginian cigarette. But, apart from the history of tobacco cultivation, it has attached to it no interest whatever. True, it is a habit—and only a habit—of many more than a hundred millions of people—a habit easily acquired and carrying with it practically no limitations of a climatic nature, such as affect betel-chewing. But here the interest of the cigarette ends. It has no religious or legal significance, and, of course, plays no part in such social institutions as birth, marriage or death ceremonies.

But in no country is betel-chewing only a habit. Propagated largely by the spread of Hinduism and Buddhism, it has at once become something much more important than a mere narcotic.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

See Watt, Economic Products of India, vol. i, p. 292 et seq., and vol. vi, pt. i, p. 248 et seq.; “Culture du Betel dans la Province de Thanh-Hoa (Annam),” Bulletin Economique de l’Indochine, vol. xiv, 1911, pp. 382-391; “The Betel Nut Industry in the Muar District, Johore,” Agricultural Bulletin of the Federated Malay States, vol. v, 1917, pp. 189-192; “The Cultivation of the Areca Palm in Mysore,” Bulletin, No. 10, Department of Agriculture, Mysore State, 1918; “The Betel Leaf or Sirih,” Agricultural Bulletin of the Federated Malay States, vol. vi, 1918, pp. 317-320; “The Areca Nut in Ceylon,” Tropical Agriculturist, vol. lxii, 1924, pp. 123-125; “Betel Vine Cultivator,” Tropical Agriculturist, vol. lxiii, 1924, pp. 107-109; and Handbook of Commercial Information for India, C. W. E. Cotton, Calcutta, 1924, pp. 285-286.

To the bibliography scattered throughout the Appendix I would add Balfour’s Encyclopædia of India, 3rd edit., 1805, under the words “Areca catechu,” “Betel-box,” “Betel-leaf,” “Betel-nut,” and “Betel-nut cracker”; Encyclopædia van Nederlandsch-Indië, under “Pinang” and “Sirih”; G. A. Stephens, “Eating or Chewing of Pan,” Westminster Review, London, August 1907, vol. clxviii, pp. 163-167; J. Molliron, Text Book on Indian Agriculture, 1910, vol. iii; A. Mendis Gunasekara Mudaliyar, The Ceylon Antiquary and Literary Register, Colombo, 1915-1916, vol. i, pt. 2, pp. 124, 125; “Betel-Nut Chewing,” Every Saturday, Boston, vol. vii, p. 741; “Betel-Nut Tree,” Penny Magazine, London, vol. v, p. 25; “Betel-Nut Chewing,” Leisure Hour, London, vol. xviii, p. 311, 592; and P. C. Patel, “The Crops of the Bombay Presidency,” Bulletin of the Department of Agriculture, Bombay, 1922.