Adinkra Symbols:

Adinkra and other writing systems
Adinkra does not fit neatly in Ong’s definition of a true script because it straddles
what he defines as a word and a sign. However, perhaps fitting Adinkra in as a writing
system is doable based on how it relates to other systems of writing. Both Ong and
DeFrancis use Native American scripts as an example for why pictograms are not true
scripts. Ong argues that Native American scripts, which are made up of picture
representations, have codes that are too unfixed making the meanings not entirely clear.
He describes how the pictographic representations of several objects serve as a kind of
“allegorical memorandum for parties who were dealing with certain restricted subjects”
and that the parties involved in creating the pictograph are necessary in determining how
these particular pictures related to each other. But often, even when the party was
involved, the meaning intended was not entirely clear (86).
Ong also discusses how Native American scripts are not easy to figure out
because the subjects of the pictures are linked with memory. As previously mentioned
only the groups who are familiar with the pictographs are able to describe what they
meant. However, their interpretation was based on how the party remembered the events
depicted in the pictograph occurred. Even upon being told what the particular pictures
related to each other, outside parties were unable to understand the meanings because the
pictographs were not codified enough for actual meaning for any actual meaning to be
understood. Therefore, Ong defines the pictograph as too unfixed to be considered
writing.
Similarly DeFrancis, through his use of Gelb’s work, agrees that Native American
scripts are pictographic writing but not real scripts because they have no attachment to
24