Tinder Box

[crockett]

Squirrel Tail- thanks, if a lot of rocks can be used, even for a shot or two- that would make a big difference in a wilderness situation so you changed my mind. I would now say the flint lock offered a couple of advantages, you didn't need caps and you could use it to start a fire.

Mike: I have to admit, I couldn't get a fire going with a bow and drill. I put a leaf under the notch to hold the powder and operated the bow until I got smoke and checked for an ember but zippo. Then a guy told me you have to use a soft piece of wood for the drill to get lots of powder and a hard piece of wood for the fire board and I guess I just forgot about it.
But...I wish I could use one. Ideally what I would want is to make the materials on site. Split out a small log for a plank - for the fire board, find a suitable stick for the drill and a green branch for the bow, and a thong/lace for the bow and Voila- Fire! Any tips appreciated.
If you get an ember, is it like with char cloth- you can't blow it out- or do you have to baby it? As I understand when you get an ember you lift the leaf containing the powder with the ember in it and put the bird nest on top and blow it into a flame.

 

[ameling]

With a bow drill, it is pretty easy to get "smoke". But that is a long ways away from getting that spark or "ember.

The purpose is to create fine wood powder, and then to generate enough heat that the powder up enough that it "chars" some, and then forms into a burning/glowing ember or coal.

Once you have that ember or coal, you have to be kind of gentle with it. It will spread throughout the rest of your wood powder. And then you have to transfer that "heat" to your "bird's nest". It takes more patience to transfer that heat. And blowing on that ember can too easily knock it apart.

There is some good info on fire making with bow drill by the Society for Primitive Technology.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[paulvallandigham]

Crockett: Okay, the best source of information I know out there for a working bow and drill is John and Gerie McPherson's Primitive Wilderness Living & Survival Skills. Tom Browm's Field Guide To Wilderness Survival also has good material on Bow & drill.

I can offer additional tips, having taken Tom's Basic Survival and Tracking class.

The fireboard and spindle need to be made of dry wood. Willow, and popular( cottonwood, aspen) are among the species of trees most widely found throughout N. America that make good woods for this. DO NOT USE cord, string, rope, or thin leather thongs for the bow"string". Use a 3/8" or wider piece of leather, or several strings or ropes tied together, to increase the grip and friction between the bow string and the spindle.

You don't want a round, smooth surface on the outside of a spindle. Don't use a wooden dowel rod! You want lots of "facets" on the spindle. Facets replace "GEARS". A wide bowstring as I have recommended grabs those facets better than does a thin one. The whole point of using a bow to spin the spindle is to EFFICIENTLY transfer energy in a horizontal, back and forth movement, to a spinning vertical movement.

And old fashioned hand drill does this with two 45 degree angled gears, one on the hand crank, and the other on the drill shaft. You have to do this with what you make of the spindle. A square piece of wood will actually make a better spindle than a round dowel will. Think about it. :hmm:

Now, to get heat generated in the fireboard, you need a rough surface. Cut a hole in the fireboard with a knife, or sharp stone, and then cut a pie shaped wedge out of the hole to the side of the fireboard. This will catch the sawdust that will be the burning ember you use to start the fire.

Now, to increase the friction and get higher heat, Cut CROSSES in the nose of the spingle, with a knife or sharp rock. I like to cut the spindle nose into 8 sections with deep cuts. If you have ever owned a lemon juicer made of wood, you get the idea of what you want that nose of the spindle to look like. A fat spindle actually works better than a skinny one.

Now, use that knife or sharp stone to gouge pie shaped slices in the hole in the fireboard. The deeper the gouges the better.

Between the gouges in the hole, and the crosses on the nose of the spindle, you have plenty of friction, and edges to knock off bits of wood to create sawdust in that cut in the fireboard.

First, adjust your stance so that the spindle is truly vertical, and you are move the bow back and forth evenly and consistently. No jerks. No stops, No slips of the string on the spindle. If you hold the bow with the web of your hand, and your finger tips on the "string", you can use finger pressure to tighten the tension of the string on the spindle as it is turning, to take up any slack.

You will develop a fine touch for this skill with lots of practice( HINT! :shocked2: )

Only when you have good back and forth movement, and good spining of the spindle do you want to now increase the pressure on the top of the spindle with your palm board. Increase it slowly so you don't stop the spinning of the spindle. You want to time your hand squeezing the bowstring with the pressure on the palm board, so that you maintain the spinning, while increasing the pressure betwen the nose of the spindle and that hole in the fireboard. As the pressure increases, so will the temperuture generated as you knock off more and more sawdust. Stroke faster, and you will get smoke, and then embers in that wedge of sawdust.

Use your knife edge or sharp stone to remove the embers and place them in your nest of tinder. Now blow on the embers to transfer the heat to the tinder to start your fire. Hold the tinder above your eyes, and blow up into it. This keeps your eyebrows, and hair from adding to the fire, and also keeps smoke out of your mouth, and nose, and lungs. :barf: :shocked2:

There are other woods you can use for bow and drill fire starting. I have a set made of Yucca stalks, dried out. Its hard, but brittle wood, and grows in the American SW. But it works very well.

Most people make their equipment too short. The bow and fireboard need to be at least as long as the distance from your armpit to your wrist bone.

The spindle should be from 12-16 inches long, so that you can use a knee to brace your weak hand and the palm board it holds on top of the spindle.

The palmboard can be anything, even a rock with a void or "vug " in it, if it can fit over a tapered end of the spindle. Grease the hole in the palm board with grease from the sides of your nose, if you have nothing else. YOu don't need to be starting fires in BOTH the FIREBOARD and the PALM BOARD!!!

The fireboard should be as long as the bow, so that you can rest one foot on it, to hold it in place as you spin the spindle in the hole. You will make many fires. A longer fireboard will give you plenty of space to begin a new hole for future fires, before it has to be replaced.

many people have much more trouble finding tinder, and organizing their fire building efforts. But, I think that is beyond the point of discussion. If you have problems, feel free to send me a PT. I got very interested in primitive fire starting after taking Tom's class, and set out to find out all about handdrills, fireplows, firesaws, and other means of creating fire by friction. Then I polished up my skills with refraction, reflection, compression, and percussion. I still can't make consistent sparks smacking two rocks together, but I can do a flint and steel fire in my sleep. I am not yet convinced that compression and reflection techniques are truly ancient primitive ways of starting fires, but there is some archeological evidence to support that primitive peoples use polished stone lens to create fire(refraction). And I have not attempted to use the fireplow, or firesaw, yet. Both involve a lot of pressure with your shoulders, and my back is not strong enough to let me do that, yet.

I hope this helps.

You can go to www.wildwoodSurvival.com to learn more about firemaking. :hatsoff:

 

[crockett]

Thanks for all the good information. I'm going to try it again.

 

[davemcg]

A couple good articles on fire starting "gear" that might help are:

On The Trail magazine Vol. 11 #2 May/June 2004 A look into fire-starting for the Nor'wester by Karl Koster

Muzzleloader Magazine July/August 2007 Strike A Light by Rex Allen Norman

Karl's article deals more with the Northern Great Lakes fur trade era, and Rex's deals more with the western Rocky Mountain fur trade era. But both have info that crosses many time periods and geographical areas.

Just some more humble thoughts to confuse the whole issue a bunch more --- and best used in conjunction with your own research.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

Mike,
you posted this awhile back, I should have asked then.
How would I go about getting these articles, do you have any ideas?

Thanks to all this is a lot of great information!

 

A couple good articles on fire starting "gear" that might help are:

On The Trail magazine Vol. 11 #2 May/June 2004 A look into fire-starting for the Nor'wester by Karl Koster

Muzzleloader Magazine July/August 2007 Strike A Light by Rex Allen Norman

Karl's article deals more with the Northern Great Lakes fur trade era, and Rex's deals more with the western Rocky Mountain fur trade era. But both have info that crosses many time periods and geographical areas.

Just some more humble thoughts to confuse the whole issue a bunch more --- and best used in conjunction with your own research.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

How would I go about getting these articles, do you have any ideas?

Purchase back issues of the magazines. They have web sites.
http://www.muzzleloadermag.com/Back Issues/back_issue_list.htm
http://onthetrail.com/backissues.shtml

 

[pichou]

THE
ANTIQUARY, VOL. XLII. ”¨JANUARY””DECEMBER, 1906.

p. 35

Mr. Redfern exhibited from his private collection antique scales, tinder-boxes, rush-holders, etc. One of the tinder-boxes shown had never been used. Consequently it was described as "a new antique." Mr. Redfern obtained it from an old gentleman who used to keep a shop on Peas Hill. When he died he was eighty years old, and he had had this tinder-box in stock from the time they were in general use. In the box was a piece of linen soaked in saltpetre, and partially burned, and the sparks obtained from the flint fell upon this piece of tinder. When the tinder was sufficiently ignited, a little piece of wood, tipped with brimstone, was held to the spark, and so a light obtained. When no more lights were required a damper was put over the tinder, and the whole thing was used as a candlestick. Several types of tinder-boxes, including Dutch examples, were shown. A tinder pistol, in which the tinder was placed in a small hole and a tiny taper inserted in a socket, was supposed to be an advance upon the flint and steel method. The hammer in descending struck a spark, which fell into the tiny box, igniting the tinder. At the side was a small receptacle holding this early type of match. Mr. Redfern mentioned a lady who distinctly remembered these brimstone-tipped matches, and amusing herself as a little girl by breaking off the brimstone tips, and so rendering the matches useless. One of the tinder pistols exhibited bore the mark of a Hull maker.

The illustration here shows a damper in place. http://books.google.com/books?id=1vIVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA99&dq="tinder+boxes"&lr=&as_brr=1#PPA100,M1

 

[pichou]

As for rag tinder, it seems to have been so common in 1800 that there was concern that the rags were being diverted from the paper industry.

The Monthly Magazine or British Register. Vol. IX, Part 1 for 1800, from January to July, inclusive.

Instead of making tinder from rags, it might be made, as in France, from the agaric of the ash. The fungus is diced thin, dried, beaten with a hammer until it becomes very elastic, and boiled in water impregnated with salt-petre. in this state it readily catches fire from the spark of a flint, and is sold very cheap at the shops by the name amadou. If this substance were ealily to be had, the rags now burnt for tinder might be preserved.

 

[crockett]

Pichou: everyone here owes you a big THANKS! How many of us have said over and over that there isn't any historical reference to char cloth, well obviously it did exist and was simply called tinder and made from linen rag. So tinder in the tinder box was char cloth.

Mystery solved

 

[BrownBear]

Then a guy told me you have to use a soft piece of wood for the drill to get lots of powder and a hard piece of wood for the fire board and I guess I just forgot about it.

I've been on a couple of archeoligical digs up here where there was wet soil. With the acids here, that results in good wood preservation. As I recall the sites we were digging carbon dated between 400 and 800 years BP (before present).

Among all the neat stuff we found (and yeah, I'm talking thousands of artifacts), there were a fair number of "fire boards" used with bows, as well as a few "drills" that by the size and worn and blackened tips were obviously used with the bows and boards.

In all cases, the boards were split from soft cottonwood, while the drills were hard spruce root. Kinda neat fire boards with up to a dozen perfectly round and black holes worn part way through.

May just be that they do things different here, but when I tried it myself, it was pretty darned easy to pull off with a little tundra cotton. The problem I had with soft drills was they were so darned easy to break if you got a little crossways with the bow.

 

[ameling]

Thank you Pichou. That is the earliest reference I have heard of that specifically mentions burned/charred rags for tinder.

But we need to use caution when trying to apply what is written in this newspaper article. Not all references to the word "tinder" in the old journals refer to the same thing. So one needs to be carefull about using that reference to "imply" that all other occurances to the word "tinder" are referring to the exact same thing.

The "leap of faith" Crockett just posted is still pretty premature. Not all written references to "tinder" can be interpretted as meaning "charcloth". That connection has not been proven for every case - based solely on one description written in 1800 in England. We cannot go walking through the streets banging on a drum shouting that "tinder" is "charcloth" just yet.

The one big ... catch ... is, that it is 1800 and over in England. A minor point, but still talking about something that was very ... common.

The other thing now missing is HOW they burned those rags for tinder. HOW did they convert it from just rags to something that would easily catch a spark? No "tins" have yet been found with a definitive connection to burning rags to make "tinder".

Those little ... details ... so often lost to history.


Bow drills. You have a choice to make with them. Either the drill or the fire board needs to be softer and wear away more than the other. Most people make their fire board from softer wood. It is usually much easier to carve/start a new hole than to make up a new drill. So people tend to lean more towards the fire board being the more "consumable" part of the set.

More little "details" from history.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[ameling]

An after-thought.

Most of the original tinder boxes that have shown up that still have something in them, have had charred bits of wood inside -- instead of charred rags or charcloth. The originals just have not been found with charcloth remaining inside, but with other "tinder". Plus some of that "tinder" found, was just grass and bark - and not charred at all. And many times that "messy junk" inside was simply dumped out to "clean it up".

So care must be taken when one thinks about proclaiming that "tinder is charcloth".

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[pichou]

Absolutely correct! Most specific refs we see are to punk, punkwood, etc. etc.

In North America, too we have no early refs to rag tinder, but plenty of refs to punkwood and fungi... what the Brits call "pyrotechnic sponge." :shocked2: :rotf: :rotf:

The use of linen rags assumes that one has rags to burn. Poorer types routinely sold their rags to a "rag and bone man." On the frontier and beyond, clothing of any sort was scarce, let alone rags for tinder, when other sources of tinder were essentially free.

The Scots, BTW used downy seed fluff from coltsfoot for tinder. Too thrifty to burn rags I bet. :wink:

 

[crockett]

Well let's try to summarize things:
1. "In the box was a piece of linen soaked in saltpetre, and partially burned, and the sparks obtained from the flint fell upon this piece of tinder." I guess this was treated cloth not charred cloth if it was soaked in saltpetre but if it was partially burned it was pretty close to what we would call char cloth and at the time it was called tinder even if other material was also called tinder. And I agree, it is in England not North America and also 1800.
2. Although no char cloth has apparently been found in tinder boxes in North America it's been my experience that char cloth can break up and disintegrate with time so it may be hard to tell if it was or wasn't used here. I agree about cloth being a valuable item on the frontier- I always wondered if anyone would "waste" it on char cloth- also if there aren't any tinder boxes with a small hole in them for making char, then how was char cloth made? I've never made char from leather but if it is doable- leather was a more abundant material but once again it seems there would have to be a hole in the tinder box for turning the leather into char.
3. It's good to know charred wood HAS been found, I'd say that pretty much makes that a PC choice.
4. Are we now pretty much in agreement that at the time the common practice was to direct sparks from flint and steel into a tinder box?
5. These "matches", could you rub a little black powder on the end of a twig and touch that to the ember to make a match or would it explode rather than ignite? What about pine resin?

I'd sure welcome anyone's thoughts on these matters- the common practice of holding a piece of char cloth over the flint- why do it that way if there is no documentation? What's the point?

 

[ameling]

Well let's try to summarize things:
1. "In the box was a piece of linen soaked in saltpetre, and partially burned, and the sparks obtained from the flint fell upon this piece of tinder." I guess this was treated cloth not charred cloth if it was soaked in saltpetre but if it was partially burned it was pretty close to what we would call char cloth and at the time it was called tinder even if other material was also called tinder. And I agree, it is in England not North America and also 1800.

***************************
*
*
Scraps of linen soaked in potassium nitrate (saltepeter) is just another way to make amadou. They just used craps of cloth instead of chunks/slices of fungus. It's also a variation of making matchcord for a matchlock gun. The amount of potassium nitrate soaked into that cord determines how fast it burns. A little helps it to slowly continue burning, while a lot makes it burn much like modern cannon fuse. Plus it can be hard to put out once it does catch a spark.
*
*
******************************

2. Although no char cloth has apparently been found in tinder boxes in North America it's been my experience that char cloth can break up and disintegrate with time so it may be hard to tell if it was or wasn't used here. I agree about cloth being a valuable item on the frontier- I always wondered if anyone would "waste" it on char cloth- also if there aren't any tinder boxes with a small hole in them for making char, then how was char cloth made? I've never made char from leather but if it is doable- leather was a more abundant material but once again it seems there would have to be a hole in the tinder box for turning the leather into char.

*****************************************
*
*
I haven't tried charred leather. Plant fibers yes (like cotton/linen/punk-wood/cattails), but not leather. Although, scrap leather and bone are used in Case-Hardening iron/steel - like gun locks. The "carbon" in them gets baked into the surface of the iron/steel.

*
*
*****************************************

3. It's good to know charred wood HAS been found, I'd say that pretty much makes that a PC choice.

*****************************************
*
*
Yes, charred wood has never been questioned. The physical, drawn, and written evidence is there. But not for charcloth.
*
*
*****************************************

4. Are we now pretty much in agreement that at the time the common practice was to direct sparks from flint and steel into a tinder box?

****************************************
*
*
It is one method specifically mentioned or depicted. The only common method? Hard to give a definitive answer to that. We also have journal entries describing fingers too cold/numb to hold and use their fire starting tools to get a fire started. But the actual method of striking and catching those sparks was not written down.

Personnally I have better sucess taking a small chunk of charred wood or tinder fungus, and pinching it on top of my flint like with charcloth and then striking my sparks. I have less success striking sparks down into my fire catching material. A matter of personal preference and practice/experience.
*
*
*********************************************

5. These "matches", could you rub a little black powder on the end of a twig and touch that to the ember to make a match or would it explode rather than ignite? What about pine resin?

********************************************
*
*
The use of the word "matches" really can get things confused. Too many people can only think about those modern stick matches when you use that word. To confuse things even more, sometimes they were also referred to as "spunk" - which usually refers to that charred wood bits.

Dipping the ends in black powder won't work. That BP burns way too fast (almost explodes) to get the wood stick burning before the BP burns out. The potassium nitrate in BP supplies lots and lots of oxygen to burn very fast. So using just sulfur on the "matches" ignites fairly easily from just a coal or burning ember/spark, and then burns with a flame at a somewhat slow pace to allow the wood stick/sliver to also get burning - and giving you time to light your candle.
*
*
**************************************************

I'd sure welcome anyone's thoughts on these matters- the common practice of holding a piece of char cloth over the flint- why do it that way if there is no documentation? What's the point?

**********************************************
*
*
Like many things, this is one area that needs to be ... interpreted ... from little original documentation. Most written sources just state that they "struck sparks" to start their fire. A few state that they struck sparks down into their tinderbox or fire-catching material. Most drawings showing flint/steel in use just show them and the sparks being struck into the air - to show off the action and sparks. But not how those sparks were caught. So we have to ... interpret ... how they were actually used from very limited and unclear sources.

Like I stated above, I hold my little chunk of charred wood or tinder fungus right on top of my flint to catch the sparks - instead of striking them down into a container of material. I get better control this way.

A similar thing would be to look at how many ways a knife was held and used. The drawn and written records are pretty limited. Some tasks with a knife require special holds, yet those have not been "documented". So do we "interpret" those specific holding/using methods, or just fumble along making do with the few ways depicted? In the end, it becomes a matter of personal choice. It is far easier to "interpret" physical objects than methods of using them. And still there will be many questions left un-answered. Such as why didn't the author/painter make it more clear? Or was he actually "interpretting" things way back then?

Many people want to get a definitive answer or have people reach a ... concensus. But too often that is unattainable. So an "agreement" cannot be reached.

Just my humble thoughts to share, and best used in conjunction with your own research.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[crockett]

Okay, well bear with me because this has been a lot of new information- at least for me- and I'm sure a lot of other folks want to get this right if possible.
1.When rags or fungus is soaked in saltpetre it is known as amadou, it was sold very cheaply in England but it may have been something used more in cities and towns. This amadou is not the same thing as char cloth which is just the cloth turned into char.
2.Mike says- No tins have been found with a connection to burning rags into char.
Okay, I'm going to hazard a guess: if this is true then those in the wilderness must have used charred wood dug out of a campfire,or tinder fungus "as is"- not soaked in saltpetre. If they did make char, they must have done it without using a tinder box- did they bury the material in ash? Would that work with rags? Punk?
Punk/punk wood- I've never had much luck getting punk taken directly from a tree to catch a spark but as I understand it this was done.Was punk from a particular species of tree(s) preferred for this? Was punk charred? How? In a campfire?
We can probably forget my idea about black powder being ground up to catch a spark and also forget the leather idea- wood was plenty available. This amadou- does it show up on the inventory lists of the fur companies or was it used primarily in the settlements?
So, if we want to strike fire in a PC manner we can strike flint and steel and direct the sparks into a tinder box or we can hold a small piece of charred wood or tinder fungus with the flint when using the striker (right now I hold char cloth over the flint).
And, the locks on a flint lock were occasionally used to start a fire.
Finally, there is another thread going on this same subject with a lot of late 1700's quotes on the need to carry tinder fungus. I was under the impression tinder fungus existed but thought it was sort of a novelty- not used that much. From some quotes by David Thompson and others it sounds like it was actually a very commonly used item in starting a fire. Is that true?

Am I getting closer to being correct on this?

 

[pichou]

Amadou is the French name for the prepared fungus. The Brits were using treated linen. Think about hard water and common soap and how they would effect old linen. Probably needed the saltpeter.

The North American tinder fungus that is sold today needs no prep. That is the common one in the fur trade too. It was gathered "in-country."

Flintlock... do you mean a tinder lighter?

 

[ameling]

Let's see if I can keep my answers to your questions straight here.

Amadou is designed to catch a spark, and then burn sorta slowly without going out, so you can then light your fire using a normal "bird's nest" of tinder. The potassium nitrate it is soaked in helps it catch that spark and then continue burning without going out. The more potassium nitrate soaked into it, the faster it will burn - often with flying sparkles - much like a cannon fuse.

Amadou required a source of potassium nitrate. That was usually acquired from people in the cities. Urine was collected, and then boiled down to get those potassium nitrate crystals. Most cities had "night soil" collectors who gathered it, took it out to facilities set up outside the city, and then processed. The amadou sellers who walked the streets selling their products had to get their potassium nitrate from those waste collectors. So amadou was mostly available in the bigger cities, but could have been made at home if someone wanted to take the time/trouble to do so. There are Viking era accounts of them making amadou by boiling slices of fungus in "strong urine". And variations go all the way back to early Roman times.

Punk and Punk Wood. This is just charred wood - as in coals fished out of the campfire and then smothered until they are out. But punky or partly rotted wood seems to work better. And yes, it is charred as well. On a very rare occasion, you can find a tree that is partially rotted, and that punky wood will catch a spark without any other preparation. But it is rare. So Punk, Punk Wood, and Spunk are all charred bits of wood, with half-rotted wood working better.

And no original "tins" have surfaced that seemed to have been used to "char" things in. How did they char their punk? Unknown, but probably just fished some coals out of the fire and smothered them. And if using punky/rotted wood, just get it burning in your fire and then fish it out.

Most households had a "tinder box" kept somewhere near their fireplace. Many were just wood boxes, but some were metal. To start a fire, you opened the lid and then struck sparks down into your charred punky wood. When at least one spark has caught, you then fished it out and used it in your "bird's nest" of tinder to start your fire. Or touched a "sulfur match" to it to get flame. But once you fished out that spark, you did not want the rest of your charred punk to continue to burn up. So you put the lid back on to smother any remaining sparks. Those wood "tinder boxes" all show lots and lots of blackened/charred surfaces inside them - from repeated contact with burning punk. The metal tinder boxes would be less affected by burning punk.

Tinder Fungus - innonotus obliquus. It is a fungus that grows primarily on Birch trees. The outside is hard, black, and kind of spikey. The inside is orangish. That inside will catch a spark without any prior preparation or charring. You can break it off of a tree, cut out a chunk, and get it to catch a spark AS-IS, fresh off the tree! Actually, the fresh tinder fungus tends to work better than some that has aged/dried a bit. The Northern Indians were found to be commonly using it, and quickly adapted to using it with flint/steel for fire starting. The very early written accounts mention that the Indians used it just like the whites used their punk/spunk/sponge back in Europe, and they quickly adopted it as well. The only real limitation on it is having Birch trees that grow in your area. So it was commonly used in areas where it could be found or traded for.

Amadou generally does not show up in trade lists. But it does get mentioned, and the "amadou seller" is a documented occupation - in bigger cities (just like "rag pickers" and "rag buyers").

So some things can be cleared up a bit, but there are still so many questions unanswered by ... history. The problem then is just how far does one go to ... interpret ... what is necessary from the available evidence. I know a bunch of people that have stopped using charcloth because of the lack of documentation for it. They now use either tinder fungus or charred punky wood. And if their supply of charred punk wood is running low, they just fish some coals out of the current campfire to refill their "tinder box". And we know that sparks were struck down into that fungus/punk from some written accounts. But we also have accounts of people who's fingers/hands were so cold/numb that they could not hold their flint/steel and get sparks. Since several accounts do not mention striking those sparks down into their "punk", we don't really know how they might have had everything arranged. So holding some chunks of tinder fungus or charred punk on top of your flint and then striking sparks onto it is ... possible ... just not specifically mentioned as such.

I hope these humble rambling thoughts help answer some of your questions. And, of course, should be used in conjunction with your own research.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

Okay, well bear with me because this has been a lot of new information- at least for me- and I'm sure a lot of other folks want to get this right if possible.
1.When rags or fungus is soaked in saltpetre it is known as amadou, it was sold very cheaply in England but it may have been something used more in cities and towns. This amadou is not the same thing as char cloth which is just the cloth turned into char.
2.Mike says- No tins have been found with a connection to burning rags into char.
Okay, I'm going to hazard a guess: if this is true then those in the wilderness must have used charred wood dug out of a campfire,or tinder fungus "as is"- not soaked in saltpetre. If they did make char, they must have done it without using a tinder box- did they bury the material in ash? Would that work with rags? Punk?
Punk/punk wood- I've never had much luck getting punk taken directly from a tree to catch a spark but as I understand it this was done.Was punk from a particular species of tree(s) preferred for this? Was punk charred? How? In a campfire?
We can probably forget my idea about black powder being ground up to catch a spark and also forget the leather idea- wood was plenty available. This amadou- does it show up on the inventory lists of the fur companies or was it used primarily in the settlements?
So, if we want to strike fire in a PC manner we can strike flint and steel and direct the sparks into a tinder box or we can hold a small piece of charred wood or tinder fungus with the flint when using the striker (right now I hold char cloth over the flint).
And, the locks on a flint lock were occasionally used to start a fire.
Finally, there is another thread going on this same subject with a lot of late 1700's quotes on the need to carry tinder fungus. I was under the impression tinder fungus existed but thought it was sort of a novelty- not used that much. From some quotes by David Thompson and others it sounds like it was actually a very commonly used item in starting a fire. Is that true?

Am I getting closer to being correct on this?

 

[crockett]

Thanks Mike so the dead, light weight material is a dead standing tree is "punky wood" suitable to char but when punk is mentioned, it would have been charred. You use punky wood to make punk (and other charred wood is also referred to as punk). As I said, I have tried throwing sparks on punky wood but it didn't work.

Pichou: on the flintlock, the references I have are for flint lock firearms not the little tool that had a flint type lock mechanism. If you want the references I can post- they all pertain to the MM era.

And thanks to everyone, a real education on the subject as far as I am concerned.

 

[ameling]

A thought occurred to me right away this morning (probably why I tossed and turned all night) that might shed some light on this "burning of rags for tinder" issue.

In the cities, especially large cities, what did the common folk use for material to make their "bird's nest" of tinder to get from a spark to a fire?

Dried grass/leaves/bark or old rope would have been in very scarce supply do to so many people needing to use it for their "bird's nest" fire starting bundle. Out in the rural countryside, these things would have been more plentiful. But you still needed to collect/dry/store them for later use.

So the thought I had, and the idea I throw out there for discussion is that

---they were using wadded up rags to form their "bird's nest" of tinder to start their fires.

Not just to catch the spark, but to convert that spark into flames to get their fire started. The two parts of starting a fire: catch a spark and then convert it into flame/fire.


If amadou is made to a large enough concentration of potassium nitrate (but not too strong), it will catch a spark, but it will also burn long enough and hot enough to get wood shavings and dry twigs burning without having to put it into a "bird's nest" of tinder (if you use a large enough chunk of it such as 2x2).

So, were those rags being burnt in a "bird's nest" of tinder? Something to think about.

Just my humble thoughts to share, and best used in conjunction with your own research.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands


p.s. An additional thought: Using rags to form a "bird's nest" of tinder also then addresses the issue of the quantity/volume of rags being burnt. To make charcloth, you only need a small amount of cloth, while making a "bird's nest" tinder bundle of rags requires many times more for each fire.