The use of typologies for classifying archaeological objects dates back to the 17th century, predating the establishment of the archaeological discipline itself. Inspired by the natural sciences and developed by the early archaeologists, these artifact taxonomies primarily rely on shape and presumed functions derived from it. The history of Prehistory has been marked by the classifications made by G. de Mortillet, H. Breuil, F. Bordes (statistical approach), among others. Apart from these typologies, several other classification methods have been employed based on different criteria, such as the analytical and structural typology developed by G. Laplace. With the advancement of archaeological sciences and the emergence of functional and technological studies revolving around the concept of chaîne opératoire, the discriminatory nature of "fossiles directeurs" has been challenged. Nowadays, classification systems still persist, often combining various parameters including typology, technology, and function. However, certain challenges remain in specific contexts, such as the differentiation between cores and tools. In this paper, we present the issues encountered during the analysis of a significant lithic collection attributed to the Lower Paleolithic. Jaljulia, an open-air site with various occupation phases ascribed to the late Acheulean, served as the focus of our analysis. Specifically, we examined area D, which is estimated to be approximately 500,000 years old based on TT-OSL and ESR dating. Our technological analysis encompassed all the flaked and shaped artifacts found at the site, totaling over 12,000 lithic knapped items. Throughout our analysis, we encountered difficulties in assigning certain items to a specific techno-typological category, or even to a single category at all. This was particularly evident in distinguishing between bifacial cores and bifaces, as well as in classifying large notches found on flakes and cores-on-flakes. Some bifacial cores and bifaces exhibited similar characteristics, such as a peripheral or almost peripheral worked edge, which could be bifacial or alternating, as well as volumetric similarities. Additionally, it became apparent that some bifaces were recycled after being discarded as cores, resulting in preferential flakes that displayed affinities with the Levallois concept. We focused on examining the characteristics of the worked edges (angulation, regularity, conformation) by comparing bifaces, cores, and unclassified pieces. Despite our efforts, it remained challenging to assign certain pieces to a specific category, blurring the line between shaping and flaking. However, we must question whether this distinction is necessary. Our taxonomies are a product of our own perception and our desire to classify and categorize each artifact within predefined boxes, without necessarily reflecting how these pieces were viewed by prehistoric populations. While the archaeological object exists independently of the observer, the types created by archaeologists do not necessarily correspond to the true nature of the object, which often remains elusive. Therefore, we have chosen to consider certain pieces as combined or mixed matrices, capable of serving as both tools and production matrices. This polyfunctional character may or may not have been intentional for the knappers. In the absence of further evidence, as prehistorians, we must acknowledge that we will likely never know for certain.