The function of the burins, as its name implies, was originally defined by Western scholars as being associated with the proliferation of bone and horn toothwork in Europe during the Late Paleolithic, where it was primarily used to burin bone and horn objects, and where the primary site of use was the chisel-like edge between the small face of the burin fact and the platform. However, with the development of use-wear analysis methods, more and more scholars no longer consider the burin design and utilization process to be so fixed, and demonstrate that burins actually represents a flexible and variable technological system rather than a single artifact type. A total of 42 burins were discovered from the Helongdadong site by archaeological excavation in 2010. These assemblages were divided into burin with beveled edge (Type A) and burin with straight edge (Type B) by the locations of burin facet. This paper reconstructs the conceptual versions and production sequences of two different types of burins through technical analysis, confirming that the burins with beveled edge were definitive tools, while the burins with straight edge show a more complex use purpose and a flexible design logic, exhibiting characteristics of both microblade cores and burins. Use-wear evidence suggests that all types of burin were used at the Helongdadong site, but the chisel-like edge was not the main part of the burins used. Although developed by prehistoric humans, the key technical structure of the ventral prismatic edge and the small facet of the burins has different meanings in different types of specimens: 1) Type A burins, the oblique prismatic edge constitutes the core use unit of the burin; 2) Type B burins, however, the oblique prismatic blade and the small facet of the burin are used both directly and for holding, hafting, chipping of micro-blades, and in some specimens, for recycling of raw materials. These phenomena demonstrate that the burins from the Helongdadong site were in fact a flexible and versatile technical system rather than a single artifact type. Considering the chronological data of the Helongdadong site, this paper suggests the flexibility of technology and utilization of the straight burins could be associated with the mobility of hunter-gatherers during LGM. Not limited to the Helongdadong site or to burins, stone artifacts from many sites should be in a state of flexible use. However, this feature is often overlooked by archaeologists, and many case studies dwell on the ambiguity of artifact types and whether a particular specimen is a tool or a core, not realizing that the ambiguity of type may suggest the flexibility and variety of prehistoric human use processes. This is why a multi-perspective view that combines technology and function is so important. This paper’s multiperspective observation of burins from the Helongdadong site will also provide insights into the flexibility of stone artifact use.