Is the parentage of Zachariah Field another FC Pierce falsehood?

Question

I noticed today that the issue of PGM Zachariah Field's parentage and lineage has not been addressed though it's been brought up since late 2017.

FC Pierce claimed he was the grandson of English astronomer John Field and the profile starts with that very statement. NEHGR debunked this in volume 22. NEHGR vol. 22, p. 166-173, esp. p. 170. NEHGR seems to cast extreme doubt on the parentage here stating the son John of the astronomer had no son named Zachariah. Is there later valid research overturning this assessment? If the Register was later proved incorrect I think it would help if the profile addressed that.

Comments

T, thanks for raising this.

Has anyone seen anything more recent than NEHGR vol 22 about his origins?

(Is he covered by Anderson?)

---

Field chart (1875, England)

https://archive.org/stream/pedigreesofcount01fost#page/n125/

Not a primary authority, but uncontaminated by Pierce and post-Pierce embroidery.

Mostly about Americans.

John Field's family is top right, 4 generations, and is only tenuously connected to the other lot.

---

In TGM I only find tangential reference and I know at least some of these references are not the same man: vI:294, 481; vII:839; vIII:384, 1893.

---

T S is actively coordinating with PGM. We do as a project attempt to give other profile managers a chance to have input to significant changes.  Thanks for posting this, TS.

---

NEHGR online

https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhisto08unkngoog#page/n190/

Evidently Foster got his stuff from Osgood Field (1868).  That explains it.

And evidently there was already a rival version in circulation by 1864.  Which mentions Zechariah, so he wasn't Pierce's invention.

---

Osgood's original article, April 1863

https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhisto32unkngoog#page/n137/

Whitmore's response, 1864

https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhisto04unkngoog#page/n308/

based on a recent pamphlet by Rev Henry Field, printed as a supplement to his earlier book, 1860, privately printed.

---

... for the use of the family, but you can buy it on Amazon now.  Or read it here

https://archive.org/details/familyofrevdavid00fiel/page/n5

---

Thanks to Jack for below and RJ for the links. Reviewing the various exchanges between the parties cited above, often written in response to the preceding, it appears that Osgood's 1867 (pub 1868) article in NEHGR 22 (p 170 specifically) which followed an earlier article which had been responded to is the most recently dated competent source on the subject. He rejects the assertion Zechariah is the son of John Field for a variety of reasons he details as well as citing errors in the pamphlet proposing that relationship.

I don't find later discussion on the subject other than people citing these 1860s findings and some of those discussions are not aware of Osgood's 1867 final commentary. The 1875 pedigree appears to corroborate Osgood that John and Christopher probably died young precluding offspring.

Is a Disputed Parentage section in order here or modify the bio copy to leave in the claim he is the grandson of astroner Field but plainly state that the last commentary on this in NEHGR stated this was false?

---

I wouldn't say Foster corroborated anything.  He just copied it.

He started out doing serious work on his own ancestors, but there wasn't any money in that.  He made a living out of being a human Xerox.

He's been described as totally uncritical, but that's not fair.  Modern critical genealogy didn't get started until later.  Most fakes hadn't yet been recognized and debunked, and Foster wasn't the man to do that.  But he wasn't particularly credulous by the standards of his time, and he wasn't Burke, he didn't cynically republish known and obvious junk.

---

A later book by Osgood Field (1895)

https://archive.org/details/fieldsofsowerbyn00fiel/page/n13

Answer 1

If you have a competent source -- and NEHGR would certainly count -- it would make sense to add the appropriate material into the biography itself, if necessary under == Research Notes==

That's the advantage of a wiki and open profiles, which is that everyone gets to edit.  Since it's pre-1700 you should collaborate with the project involved, but I fear that a lot of important material gets lost when it is simply mentioned in G2G, where we "talk about" genealogy, rather than actually "doing genealogy!