If you want dreads I put up this page (actually its not all done yet) to help you get them. Ive had my dreads now for about 12 years. They look great and I enjoy having them. It's something a little different, lets people know that I'm not exactly like everyone else. I used dread head dread wax to start my dreads. There are other waxes out there but I like dread head the best. You can check out thier page at www.dreadheadhq.com they are cool about answering your questions and stuff.

Below is some cool stuff about dreads that was on a page I saw. I don't take credit for it, I just thought id quote it.

"Hair being so tangled up that it, by itself, assumes the shape of rope (or clumps, blocks when they go thick). A definition of what is dreadlocks and what is not, can be (just like like death is defined) dreadlocks = a state from which one cannot get the hair back to "normal" again (without of course, cutting it). For instance, if you "have" dreadlocks and they go loose and dissolve, or you were able to break them up and "disband" them yourself, it means you never had dreadlocks. Once you do have dreadlocks it is (in practice) impossible to unravel them. If you sit around with a pair of tweezers and very carefully take out each hair (at least 100 000) they'd try to gather up and reform and you'd have to the same thing over and over again. In the end, however, it would probably be possible to "undread" them, but only in theory. That is a problem with the definition but I can't find a better alternative. Anyway, it'll do for most purposes.



Different native peoples have worn them since whenever, which is not odd as someone who neither cuts or combs his/her hair will sooner or later get dreadlocks. The reason that not all prehistoric men and women wore dreadlocks is for instance because they combed, cut their hair and possibly because they weren't using shampoo to wash it (there's more about shampoo later).

We can't know who were the first to observe the phenomenon of locks, because they seem to have been present when each culture in question entered writing (or other depicting). The first attestation in writing (The Pharaos may be older but I have no evidence at hand to deny or confirm that), is in the Veda scriptures of India, whose earliest pieces are dated to 1800 B.C (but are most probably much older in origin due to a long oral tradition). The word in question is jaTa, cited in Monier-Williams' (leading in its field) Sanskrit-English dictionary to mean: "wearing twisted locks of hair" and as feminine (jaTaa) "the hair twisted together (as worn by ascetics, Shiva, and persons in mourning)". Other dictionaries have the same things to say and in fact the word, together with various compounds and derivations, remains today! My contemporary Hindi dictionary translates it nicely as "matted hair". As is clear from its retroflex T, the word (as well as the concept) is not of Indo-Aryan origin but a loan word from Dravidian. (Quick history refresher: The fair skinned Indo-Aryans entered India from the north, already living there were the darker skinned (but whose hair texture resembles straight hair rather than curly) Dravidians, whose origins remain obscure). Mayrhofer's ethymological (dealing with the origin or words) dictionary calls it not sufficiently explained but nevertheless an early loan from Dravidian root caTai meaning to twist, to wrap. From the earliest days up until today locks on the Indian subcontinent occur frequently in connection with the God-figure Shiva (Dravidian) and asceticism (also Dravidian), so we can easily see how the whole concept including locks was incorporated in the Vedic culture. These were the first to write about it because it was before any Dravidian language was comitted to writing. At least as far we know today. There may be a Dravidian relation to the Indus valley culture, but its script isn't yet deciphered. My Sanskrit teacher here at the Uppsala University holds that the word caTai is atleast 3500-4000 and sees no reason why it shouldn't be another couple of thousand years older. Some propose that icons found in the Indus valley culture are forerunners of Shiva, if there is such a connection and these depictings are not pre-locks-staged then that would push back the date greatly, to the likes of 3000 B.C. However that may be, this still predates its biblical counterpart pera3 (e is seghol and 3 is ayin) listed in Brown-Driver-Briggs (leading in its field) Hebrew-English Lexicon to mean "long hair of head, locks". It's derived from the root paara3 with the meaning "to be loose, to let loose, to let go, to let alone etc" (not very surprising, see below how to make locks) and has various cognates in related languages such as Arabic far3un "long hair of woman", and in Syrian whose script I can't read. See also later on for a more thorough discussion of locks and the Old Testament. Other dictionaries agree that the verb root is to mean "let loose" etc and the noun "hair", "loose hair" and even "unbraided hair".



Nowadays in India, locks are spotted among Sadhus (holy men). A lot of them have very impressive jaTaa:s (locks) like this one. Check the picture gallery (bottom of article) for more.

Locks occur, according to the rumor, in Africa (I am in hold of no evidence to deny or support these), atleast in these tribes:

Ethiopia, Bahatowie priests of the Amhara nation believed to be of the Coptic faith.
Senegal, Baye Fal, believed to be a sect of Islam. Mouridism, also a sect of Islam.
Sudan, several small sects of Islam.
Kenya, Akorino of the Kikuyu nation. Oromo Beja or a sect called "the church of the living god".
Ghana, The Bono of Techiman and Fitish priests.

These sound to me as recent adopters of the locks tradition, and if that's so, of no particular interest.


Somali
Galla
Maasai
Mau Mau

The two later reside in Kenya (Maasai also Tanzania according to some) and Somali at the horn of Africa, Galla I don't know but I'd guess East Africa there aswell. Maasai is the most well-known by the rumour. It is said that they grow locks in an age grade called Moran, symbolizing warriorship, but usually only to shoulder length and that they are becoming increasingly modernized i.e less keen on holding on to the old locks and other traditions. There is a book with photos about the Maasai called "Maasai" by Tepilot Ole Saitoti with photos by Carol Beckwith, New York: Harry Abrams, 1980. I haven't read it but I guess I should. Mau Mau is not a tribe really but the name of a revolting movement active 1952-56 of which dreadlocked members were shown in Jamaican newspapers from the 1950s. See the end (or perhaps I should say the bottom half) of this article for more information about the Rastafarian connection to dreadlocks. Somali and Galla are only mentioned in connection with Maasai, that's my experience, but most common is the phrase "Maasai and other neighbouring tribes". The book "Everything you need to know about hairlocking: Dread, African & Nubian locks" 2nd Edition, by Nekhena Evans, New Bein' Enterprises 1994 lists another couple of tribe names but without explicit sources. It is very weak on non-spiritual information on locks but if it can be trusted at all it's on the African issues. She lists (names of cultures somewhere in Africa):


Shonja, wearing them thin and calling it string hair.
Pokot tribe of Kenya, wearing them in a sack and calling it ancestor hair.
Kau
Ashanti
Fulani

Ancient Egyptians, who liked to put jewelry and ornaments in their locks, Pharaos especially but also civilians. In particular King Tut's Body, is said to be preserved up until today with locks. This shouldn't be too hard to check.




Continuing in the rest of the world, here's for instance a picture of a native "Borneo head hunter". It's of rather bad quality even before scanning but one should be able to distinguish the alleged head-hunter's short locks. Other mentioned peoples include (again I am just quoting hearsay, it's interesting anyway):




Judge yourselves but the obvious objection (and the one I hold) is that these thick strings need not represent locks. If I didn't have the patience, skill, tools or whatever I would paint hair that way, and so would an arbitrary five year old, I think.
Aborigines
New Guineans

Barry Chevannes, a reliable scholar on Rastafari, writes on page 97 in "Rastafari and Other African-Caribbean Worldviews" that "Matted hair in particular, may be found in widely different parts of the world - Africa, India, North America and Western Europe." But he does not give any further leads or sources.

A favourite claim is that the Celts wore locks and that Caesar described them having "hair like snakes". Now, According to my professor of Latin at the Uppsala University, all Caesar ever wrote about the Celts is in the very famous "Commentarii Iuli Caesaris de bello Gallico" (my translation: "Comments on the Gallic War by Julius Caesar") volumes I-VII. The above cited "having hair like snakes" didn't ring a bell in professor Hans's mind. Anyway, I eyed through the works quickly but not negligently, this is important stuff, but couldn't find the desired account. (Using both Holmes's "C. Iuli Caesaris de Bello Gallico" reprint of the 1914 version and Swedish "Gaius Julius Caesar: Kriget i Gallien" I & II compiled by Åke Fridh in 1963). Furthermore, according to Cassell's Latin-English/English-Latin Dictionary, Cavallin's Svensk-Latinsk Ordbok, Meine-Göthling's Deutsch-Lateinisch Wörterbuch and Lateinische Synonymik, all the words in latin for snake are serpens, boa, anguis, coluber, basiliscus, vipera (poisonous), draco, aspis and two obvious greek loans hydrus (watersnake) and cerastes (hornsnake (what is that?)). NONE of these occur in the "Complete lexicon of the latinity of Caesar's Gallic War" by E.G Sihler in reprint from 1891. If snake was ever in Caesar's Gallic War then surely it would have been in the lexicon which has all the latin words occuring in the works and accounts every single use of each word. The words for rope, funis and laqueus, occur a few times but not when talking about hair (but ships and sailing). The words for braid (noun) or braiding (verb) or something braided, woven, put together (participle) etc nexere, connexere, texere, contexere don't occur either except when talking about woodwork. It must therefore be concluded that Caesar never made such a statement and I don't know from where the rumour is. Neither does my teacher of Celtic languages and studies at the University.


Next come news of past Germanic tribes wearing locks, Jesus, Greeks, people of the land called Nazareth, Pacific peoples, Naga Indians (known also as Serpent People), Buddha (don't know about him though) etc but this is where it gets ridiculous - without any evidence at all. And yes, the burden of proof is on he or she who claims X wore locks during Y past time, because even though the comb may or may not have been invented, the scissors or the knife or some means of cutting, was available. Moreover comb is a superior, but not the only, way to untangle and prevent knots - you can use your fingers (once a day) to do the trick. Notice I am not saying these individuals in question didn't wear locks, I am just saying that that opinion is premature, not yet proven (and not yet disproven).

As is perhaps noted, the word dreadlocks is not a universal term (each culture in question seem to have a word of their own) but relates to a specific lifestyle known as Rastafarianism. In this text I am sloppy enough to use "locks" and "dreadlocks" interchangably. This is not recommended practise. Use the indigenous word, if not available then "locks" will do. The word "Dreadlocks" is of Jamaican origin. Made up so because in the early stages of the movement people were afraid of the Rastamen (dread means fear or horror). Another explanation is the locks bearer is the one who is the fearer (biblical fear of the Lord, that is) but I'd say that sounds like afterwards-made-up-to-fit-in. Today the word dread is extended to various uses as an adjective, adverb, noun etc not only denoting the hairstyle of a "dread". Rastafarian elder Mortimer Planno here is dread in the meaning wise and righteous (this picture is atleast 10-20 years old though).




HOW DO YOU MAKE DREADLOCKS?

You cannot "make" dreadlocks, rather grow. Someone having created their dreadlocks from scratch in some way (could be comb or crochet) in just a day or so don't have, according to the definition, dreadlocks since you easily (well there'll be some work) can get the hair back to "normal" again if only a day has passed. If you force the hairs together they won't be stuck in the same manner as when its shape has been assumed by itself. If there was a quick way to do that (nature still rules) this page wouldn't be around. The order the hair assumes by itself is stabile and if one tries to change that the hair will try to resume the last stabile state. That's why it takes time to get the hair stabile in a different state, both if you want to make or unmake locks, it won't happen smoothly. ANYWAY, THE POINT IS TO GET THE HAIR AS IRRITATED, TANGLED UP AND MESSY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT IT DREADS BY ITSELF. This is however not the whole truth as healthy hair will sort it itself out and untangle itself naturally. It is a great advantage to have thick hair, long hair or curly hair (or all three for that matter) simply because it gets fussy and tangled up much easier then.

One often wonders what happens to the new hair that keeps growing - hair grows from the root so it will sort of be tied up in one direction and stuck anchored in the head in the other. A result of this is that it never gets the chance to sort itself out and inevitably dreads itself. This doesn't happen without any problems, in fact "flaps" are a common problem (more about "flaps" and such later) and it takes time (half a year - a year, or longer) until it works fully and nicely.

HAIR IN THEORY:

Dirt (= unnice chemical substances for hair) and tough goings tear the hair. The hair wants its enzymes and protein and whatever other substances so that it won't break and has all its chains and channels intact. As the hair each day encounters a lot of "harmfulities" it emits a layer of grease as a barricade in order to keep unwanted stuff away. This barricade is of course not an invincible barricade. Once dirt lands in the hair it'll keep laying there but it won't reach through to pick on it. And then when some more dirt bumps down on roughly the same spot the layer of grease becomes insufficient. So by washing your hair you accomplish two things: You wash away the dirt AND the grease. Which means right after a wash the hair is very vulnerable without its grease membrane (fortunately, after a wash there is neither any dirt left in there to damage it either). And once