The article examines how Chinese archaeology has long operated under a culture-historical paradigm that privileges classification, typology, and artifact-based chronology, yet struggles to generate systematic explanations of cultural change. Drawing on Kuhn's notion of paradigm revolution, the author observes that archaeology in the West has moved from culture-historical toward processual and postprocessual approaches, underpinned by new concepts such as functionism, systemic thinking, and positivist methods. By contrast, Chinese archaeology, introduced as a tool for reconstructing national history, remains centered on meticulous excavations whose data often lack clear problem orientation. The result is a tendency to rely on inductive empiricism—classifying and describing artifacts without adequately linking them to broad social, economic, or ideological contexts. The article highlights that embracing more advanced theoretical models—whether functional-ecological, systemic, or evolutionary—demands not simply new techniques but a shift in how archaeologists define research questions and interpret material remains. Also critiqued is the inconsistent or nationalistic use of key concepts, e.g. chiefdom or archaic state, without properly grounding them in anthropological theory, creating further obstacles to global dialogue. Concluding, the author calls for a more rigorous approach that integrates deductive methods, systematic comparative analyses, and an openness to global archaeological theory, so that salvage excavations become genuine scientific inquiries rather than routine, rote projects. Through conceptual reconfiguration and an expanded theoretical toolkit, Chinese archaeology can better meet its stated aim of explaining, rather than merely enumerating, the national rich prehistoric record.