With research in question, Emory historian resigns post
By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/26/2001
H istorian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a controversial 2000 book
on gun ownership in early America, resigned from Emory University in
Atlanta yesterday after a devastating indictment of his research was
made by an outside committee of scholars.
Bellesiles's major argument in the book ''Arming America: The Origins
of a National Gun Culture'' was that the image of the yeoman Colonist
with his trusty flintlock was a myth, that few early Americans owned
guns, and that those they did own were usually broken or useless. The
book won the coveted Bancroft Prize for history in 2001 and was hailed
by gun-control advocates while being fiercely attacked by gun-owner
groups.
At the same time, mainstream scholars raised questions about research
Bellesiles did into probate records. His credibility problems were
compounded when he said that he had lost all of his research notes in
a flood at Emory. A Globe review last year found that San Francisco
records Bellesiles cited in his book had been destroyed in the 1906
earthquake and fire there, and that records in Providence and Vermont
contradicted his book and explanations on his Web site.
Emory dean Robert A. Paul named a blue-ribbon panel to investigate
last year; it comprised Hanna H. Gray, former president of the
University of Chicago; Stanley N. Katz, professor of public affairs at
Princeton; and Harvard historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.
Focusing mostly on allegations that Bellesiles had falsified research
on probate inventories of California and New England, the committee's
report said attempts to evaluate a key table on which Bellesiles's
central thesis was based were ''an exercise in frustration because it
is almost impossible to tell where Bellesiles got his information. ...
The best that can be said about his work with the probate and militia
records is that he is guilty of unprofessional and misleading work.''
It was not clear yesterday whether the finding would affect the
Bancroft Prize, which is given by the trustees of Columbia University.
In a defiant statement issued yesterday, Bellesiles said, ''The
overwhelming bulk of the evidence in support of this book's thesis
remains unchallenged. ... All that remains in question are the few
paragraphs and tables on probate materials. On those paragraphs,
Emory's committee of inquiry found no evidence of fabrication, though
they do charge evasion. ... I adamantly deny both charges. I have
never fabricated evidence of any kind nor knowingly evaded my response
as a scholar. I have never consciously misrepresented any data or
evidence.''
''His answers raise doubts about his veracity,'' the report states.
''He seems to have been utterly unaware of the importance of the
possibility of replication of his research. His responses have been
prolix, confusing, evasive, and occasionally contradictory. Even at
this point, it is not clear that he understands the magnitude of his
probate research shortcomings.''
Although the report also says, ''we do not believe it possible to
state conclusively that Professor Bellesiles engaged in intentional
fabrication or falsification of research data,'' it adds, ''we are
seriously troubled by Professor Bellesiles's scholarly conduct. ...
the failure to clearly identify his sources does move into the realm
of falsification.''
Paul's statement said all the members of the committee ''had agreed
not to discuss or respond to questions'' about their report, which has
been posted, along with Bellesiles's response, at www.
emory.edu/central/NEWS/index
.shtml. Bellesiles could not be reached for comment yesterday.
David Mehegan can be reached at mehegan at globe.com.
This story ran on page C1 of the Boston Globe on 10/26/2001.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.