A formal classification of implements may help us discern any regularities of distribution in time and space. Moreover attention to terms used for parts of implements seems likely to be more rewarding than the often sterile arguments about terms used for whole implements. Terms of the latter type are, it is true, more frequent in our sources, but we may not be able to rely on literati comprehending technical niceties, even if they recorded them correctly. Moreover the indeterminate nature of terms such as sokha and plug (plough) is increased by the fact that they were also used as measures of land area and as units of taxation. On the other hand, the oral tradition, if it could only be recovered, seems more likely to reflect the terminology of the users. In another context it has been remarked that ‘it is by no means uncommon for very ordinary words to remain latent for long periods’ and it may not be too much to hope that we may sometimes be able to bring about that ‘reemergence out of the obscurity of talk into the light of literature’. such recovery, if achieved for the Russian material, would no doubt provide its own problems, but at the same time, it might help us towards a deeper understanding of the material.

Once a classification of implements and their parts has been established, it becomes necessary to account for any regularities observed.