American Chestnut Trees in Longmeadow

Perhaps you have noticed one or two information kiosks which recently sprouted in Bliss and Laurel Parks? These kiosks mark two of Longmeadow’s long-term survivors of the chestnut blight. The trees are not impressive to look at, but are amazing for the story of resilience they tell.

First, we need to be clear that this article is about the native American chestnut tree, Castanea dentata, which bears edible nuts, not the more frequently recognized Common Horsechestnut tree, Aesculus hippocastanum which was introduced from Europe and bears poisonous nuts.  Although the two trees bear similar burred nuts, they are not closely related and their leaves are quite different.  Horsechestnut leaves are compound with seven leaflets radiating out from each petiole or stem, while American chestnut leaves are single and sharply toothed.  Horsechestnut burrs contain a single large nut, while American chestnut burrs contain three smaller nuts.

American Chestnut Nuts with Burrs and Leaves

Photo by Timothy Van Vliet, 2004 via Wikipedia

American chestnuts were a keystone species along the Appalachian range, providing an important source of nutrition for wildlife and humans.  Unfortunately, a blight caused by the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica was brought to North America on Japanese chestnut trees, Castanea crenata, sometime in the late 1800’s. Although we do not know exactly when and where the first American chestnut trees became infected, we do know that Hermann Merkel, the chief forester of the Bronx Zoo, identified the disease on mature chestnut trees in the zoo in 1904. Over the next few decades, billions of chestnut trees were lost from eastern woodlands.  Early in the blight epidemic, many dead and dying trees were harvested for their still marketable lumber. Because the blight only affects the above ground portions of the tree, the remaining stumps and root collars resprout new growth. These new shoots grow for years and sometimes decades, before they too succumb to the blight. It is rare for the new shoots to live long enough to bear nuts, and so the species is considered “functionally extinct.” This leads us to the rather exciting conclusion that the few remaining specimens growing in Longmeadow are quite old organisms, in spite of their small stature. They have likely been growing and dying back to their roots in the same location for over 100 years!

We know that chestnut trees have long been present in Longmeadow, as documented by these photographs in the Paesiello Emerson collection at the Longmeadow Historical Society.

Chestnut trees, Depot Road (Emerson Street), 1910

Longmeadow Historical Society Emerson Collection

Chestnut tree in blossom, Page's Lot, 1918

Longmeadow Historical Society Emerson Collection

Unlike Japanese and Chinese chestnut trees which were selected over centuries and domesticated into small, easy to harvest orchard trees, American chestnuts grow straight and tall and were an important source of lumber.

Local trees including chestnuts were harvested and cut into beams and planks and incorporated into local structures. Chestnut wood is strong and decay resistant and easy to work. The grain is reminiscent of oak, but the wood is lighter in weight.  During demolition of the last known milking shed in Longmeadow on Williams Street in 2023, some chestnut beams were identified and preserved for reuse. If you visit one of the information kiosks in Bliss and Laurel Parks, you can see a chestnut wood sample and some nuts embedded in resin.

Prior to the industrial revolution, trees were cut and shaped into beams and planks by hand with saws, adzes, planes and other hand tools. In the early 1800’s water power was harnessed to process trees into lumber. One early Longmeadow water-powered sawmill is documented on this map from 1831. The mills were located on the Longmeadow Brook near the intersection of Shaker Road and Mill Road. The eastern end of Mill Road was abandoned by the town in 2001.

This detail from the 1855 map shows the same mills, now accompanied by a dam and pond slightly upstream. Perhaps you recognize the pond which is now on the property of the Longmeadow Country Club?

This image from the 1894 map shows the millrace which carried water from the pond to the mills and then back to the Longmeadow Brook. Note that the sawmill had been converted to a knitting mill by 1894.

Perhaps the townspeople found it more efficient to mill their lumber where the trees were harvested with a steam powered sawmill? This photograph shows workmen processing trees into lumber with a steam powered sawmill.

Spring is upon us, so soon you will be able to identify one or more of Longmeadow’s few remaining American chestnut trees by their characteristic leaves. While doing so, take a moment to reflect on the incredible fact that these ancient survivors continue to struggle against the fungus unwittingly introduced along with exotic trees more than 100 years ago.

-Contributed by Dave Marinelli, Longmeadow Historical Society

Frankenstein! And we don’t mean Mary Shelley’s monster!

We are all familiar with the story of Frankenstein written by Mary Shelley—perhaps from one of the many movies inspired by the book.  My favorite is the comedic version from 1974 starring Gene Wilder, Madeline Kahn, and Teri Garr— “it’s pronounced Fronkensteen!” But in the museum world, a Frankenstein is not a monster but an object made up of parts of other artifacts. This goes beyond the repair of a broken foot or a replaced caned seat. Sometimes they are made to deceive, but other times they are just pragmatic uses of the still-functional parts made into a new “whole.”

This Queen Anne-style table (Acc. # 19xx-99) was described in the records as a 17th-century mahogany table from the Williams family. It could be referred to as a pier table—or a table designed to be placed against a wall--often between two windows. This table does have some old elements—the graceful cabriole legs with their “pad” feet appear to be old.  The disc-like extensions on the bottom of the legs have been altered, and modern pieces have been substituted.  More modern screws in the bottom reveal where casters used to be. 

When the top is examined from underneath (yes, we have done this!) it does not have the darkened patina appearance that we would expect for a table of its era. It also has some extra bracing that would suggest that the top was originally a marble top. The table has been cut down lengthwise at some point.

Next, we looked at the shell carving on the front and “knees” of the legs.  The shell is fairly simple and the finish on the shells is oddly different. 

Finally, we looked at the spiral applied carvings on the front and sides of the table.  They look suspiciously familiar…AHA!  The Storrs House Museum contains a wonderful piece of case furniture, referred to as a bookcase-on-desk.  Only four examples from this maker are currently known; two are in the collections of Historic Deerfield, one is privately owned in Hartford, and ours.  The top of the bonnet features three ball finials.  We had wondered if those elements were missing a flame finial at the top, as many pieces of this type had. This theory was furthered when we found a flame finial in the attic of the Storrs House several years ago.  Placing that finial against the spiral elements on this table—it’s a match!  So, two old finials were split in half and applied to the front and side skirts of this "Frankenstein" table, leaving one lonely remaining finial to reside in the attic!  Did they come from the big case piece, perhaps removed when it proved too tall to be moved into another room?

We will likely never know when this table was “created” or learn whether it was a deliberate act of fakery or just a frugal Yankee making use of what was handy.  We have several theories—one is that the table did truly belong to the Williams family.  When Stephen Williams’ parsonage house burned down in 1846, several items were rescued and brought to the Storrs House. While this table is not listed among those items, perhaps someone dropped it during that emergency, breaking the stone or marble top.  Being practical, and wanting to preserve this important relic of a beloved minister, perhaps someone replaced the broken top with mahogany boards.  Since the Storrs House was smaller than the Williams house, the space between the windows was also smaller, necessitating a shorter table.  We’re still on the hunt for an explanation! 

-Contributed by Betsy McKee, Longmeadow Historical Society Board Member 

Sources: Connecticut Valley Furniture: Eliphalet Chapin and His Contemporaries, 1750-1800, by Thomas P. Kugelman, Alice P. Kugelman, and with Robert Lionetti; The Furniture of Historic Deerfield, by Dean A. Fales, Jr.; American Furniture, edited by Luke Beckerdite and William N. Hosley; American Furniture 1620 to the Present, by Jonathan L. Fairbanks and Elizabeth Bidwell Bates; Boston Furniture 1700-1900, edited by Brock Jobe and Gerald W. R. Ward; Furniture Treasury, by Wallace Nutting.  We also picked the brains of several furniture experts and curators!

What's in a Name? Tar Kiln Dingle Brook

Pitch Pine Credit Wikipedia User Famartin

Recently, a former resident of Franklin Road inquired about the origin of the name of the brook and dingle that ran behind his childhood home; Tar Kiln Dingle Brook. 

Map Showing Tar Kiln Dingle Brook (Credit Town of Longmeadow)

So what is a tar kiln? Why would it have been in that location? Who owned and operated it and why? 

A tar kiln is a device used to produce pine tar by melting it out of dead pine trees. To create a tar kiln, first a large pit was dug in the ground. Next a trench was dug out one side of the pit down hill. Then both the pit and the trench were lined with clay. After that, the pine wood was piled in the pit with pine rich heart wood or stumps on the bottom and light wood at the top. Then the wood was covered in dirt that had been dug out from the pit leaving a small portion of the light wood uncovered. Finally, the light wood would be lit on fire. 

Tar Kiln Diagram: Credit George Wilkinson

The fire and dirt would create an oven that would cause the pine tar to melt out of the heartwood or stumps. The clay at the bottom of the pit would prevent the tar from seeping into the sandy soil and the trench would allow the tar to flow into a barrel. 

The brook and dingle made for an ideal place for a tar kiln. The brook supplied the clay to line the kiln and the dingle provided the necessary slope for the trench to allow the tar to flow into the waiting barrel. 

A Bottle of Pine Tar Credit Wikipedia

So what was it used for? Pine tar had many uses including wood preservation (especially for boats and ships), rope preservation,  a sealant for roofs and as an ingredient of products like printing press ink and turpentine. 

So who owned it? Unfortunately, I was unable to find an answer. The earliest mention of the place by name comes from a 1911 address given on the occasion of the commemoration of the 275 anniversary of the settlement of Springfield and it does not list much about its origins. 

Credit Connecticut Valley Historical Society 

While we do not know who owned the tar kiln, we can infer much about its use based on its location and the economic activity that was happening in town during the colonial period and the early years of our country. 

1831 Map Longmeadow Historical Society Archives

The brook existed right near the town’s saw mill. The saw mill would have provided wood for the kiln as well as customers that were seeking a wood preservation agent. In particular, this must have been of use to the flat boat men like Captain John Cooley and William Hixon who would have needed pine tar to both seal the wood on their hulls and the rope they used on their boats. 

Finished products that contained pine tar, such as turpentine and printing ink, were produced locally as well. The below ads placed in local papers document a once vibrant cottage industry that both produced products for local markets, but for international markets like the West Indies too. 

Ad for Pine Tar and Derived Products: Credit Springfield Republican April 20, 1825

Ad by Longmeadow Resident Nathaniel Ely for Printing Ink Derived from Pine Tar: 

Federal Spy September 10, 1793

Like many other products, the Industrial Revolution allowed pine tar to be produced cheaply leading to the decline of cottage industries like the tar kiln at Tar Kiln Dingle Brook. In the end, all we are left with is the name that reminds us of a once thriving industry in our region. 

Special thanks to Stephen Bearce for submitting this inquiry and to Al McKee, Lenny Shaker, and Dave Marinelli for their assistance with researching this topic. 

Sources: 

Barrows, Charles H. An historical address delivered before the citizens of Springfield in Massachusetts at the public celebration, of the two hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the settlement; with five appendices, viz: Meaning of Indian local names, The cartography of Springfield, Old place names in Springfield, Unrecorded deed of Nippumsuit, Unrecorded deed of Paupsunnuck. Springfield, Mass., Connecticut Valley historical society, 1916. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/16015737/. 

Gluck, Emily. “Yankee Tarheels: Remembering the Pitch Pine Industry of Colonial America.” Northern Woodlands, June 2015. 

Kaye, Theodore P. “Pine Tar; History and Uses.” San Francisco National Maritime Park Association , July 7, 1997. https://maritime.org/conf/conf-kaye-tar.php. 

Secretary of State, and Thomas Jefferson, Report of the Secretary of State, on the Privileges and Restrictions on the Commerce of the United States in Foreign Countries § (1793). 

Storrs, Richard Salter. Proceedings at the Centennial Celebration of the Incorporation of the Town of Longmeadow, October 17th, 1883. Google Books. Longmeadow, Massachusetts: Secretary of the Centennial Committee, under authority of the town, 1884. https://books.google.com/books?id=1mGEiuq3P4EC&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.