This chapter delves into the issues of symbolization and material signification as they have been conceived in the literature on human origins, focusing on three interrelated questions found at the crux of the debate on behavioral and cognitive “modernity:” firstly, how did material objects signify in prehistoric times? Secondly, how were material signs created at that point in time? And thirdly, how did material signs and human minds evolve and change over time? These questions about the nature, emergence, and evolution of material signification have been addressed in very different ways by two broad schools of thought. The symbolocentric paradigm, which for long was the favored approach, treats material signs in linguistic terms, attributes their creation to predefined mental templates harbored by symbolically and linguistically capable brains, and sees their evolution as an adaptive response to selective pressures. Contrastingly, a more recent approach defines material signs primarily based on their material qualities and relations, ascribes their creation to the anchoring of cognitive projections onto these physical manifestations, and approaches their evolution as an ontogenetic process driven by the prolonged engagement between humans and things. Opting for the latter way of thinking, this chapter evaluates the theoretical assumptions of the traditional approach, and sketches the materially sensitive dictates of Peircean semiotics and the Material Engagement Theory. As we suggest, the emphasis of these chronologically distant, but philosophically proximate frameworks on the ontological primacy of process and situated engagement, allows them to shed new light on the origins of mind and material semiosis.