This paper made a critical review on the development of stone artifact classification and typological research in paleolithic archaeological field. It traced back the origin of this approach in France and subsequent development in Africa, Southeast Asia and China. Its roles in paleolithic studies as well as the limitation and controversies surrounding it were accessed and analyzed.

Classification on lithic materials and typological analysis are basic academic practice in paleolithic research. F. Bordes’ typological framework came into being in the 1950s and 1960s made profound influence in this subject, other scholars also made contributions to this scheme by adding regional typological variants. Throughout its development, the exercise of lithic classification and typological investigation have been questioned and criticized for its subjective matters and the lack of commonly accepted criteria, and efforts of amendment and improvement have been continued. Today, lithic typological system has largely become a tool-kit for organizing, categorizing, simplifying and describing information of unearthed materials from certain sites. Its function as a descriptive tool is important; it can provide vital information on the content of certain archaeological collection, the nature and formation of the site, lithic technology, stone tool function, cultural tradition and development, etc. However, compared to studies on lithic technology, tool function, raw material exploitation, subsistent pattern, adaptation strategy and landscape utility, which are more closely related to human behavior and cognitive capacity, typological inquiry is becoming less indispensable and more and more marginal in the whole research enterprise. Lithic typology in China is a good example of the general trend of development of this research field; it is an admixture and integration of key western typological elements and terms and innovation with regional characteristics. To better understand the current debates and concerns regarding the status and function of lithic typology, we need to clarify the nature, principle, function and limitation of traditional typology, and to move forward from a basic classification and description tradition to in-depth research into human behavior and adaption. A techno-typological approach guided by the conception of Chaîne opératoire and aided by digital technology might be the solution toward this direction.