GunCite has done a fine job of collecting reviews and analyses of Bellesiles' distortions.  In particular, I recommend reading their comparisons of a history by another author of the initial Revolutionary War battles around Lexington and Concord with Bellesiles'.  Just reading that other history is worth the look.  A number of comments discussing Bellesiles's defense ("Disarming the Critics") of his book "Arming America" may found on the Organization of American Historians site. The Contra Costa County History Center responds to Prof. Bellesiles claim to having found San Francisco Probate records in their collection.

News Reports

Emory's final report on Bellesiles' research; (see page 18)

But in one respect, the failure to clearly identify his sources, does move into the realm of "falsification," which would constitute a violation of the Emory "Policies." The construction of this Table implies a consistent, comprehensive, and intelligible method of gathering data. The reality seems quite the opposite. In fact, Professor Bellesiles told the Committee that because of criticism from other scholars, he himself had begun to doubt the quality of his probate research well before he published it in the Journal of American History. [Interview, p.35-6 AA 00764-764; MB 00448]

The most egregious misrepresentation has to do with his handling of the more than 900 cases reported by Alice Hanson Jones. When critics pointed out that Jones’ data disagreed with his, Bellesiles responded by explaining that he did NOT include Jones’s data in his computations because her inventories, taken during the build-up to the American revolution, showed a disproportionately high number of guns! Here is a clear admission of misrepresentation, since the label on column one in Table One clearly says "1765-1790." If Professor Bellesiles silently excluded data from the years 1774-1776, as he asserts, precisely because they failed to show low numbers of guns, he has willingly misrepresented the evidence. This, compounded with all the other inconsistencies in his description of his method and sources and the fact that neither he nor anyone else has been able to replicate any part of his data, suggest that there is a real discrepancy between the research Professor Bellesiles did and his presentation of that research in Table One.

Bellesiles' resignation statement; Exercise in excusing himself.

Report from Emory Wheel; Organizations will consider taking away Bellesiles' awards
By Sarah Mendola
Staff Writer, November 19, 2002

By January, Professor of History Michael Bellesiles will not have a job at Emory. And after last month's scathing report from an Emory-appointed outside panel, he may lose the awards for his 2000 book on early American gun culture, too.
Groups that originally showered praise and awards on Bellesiles (pronounced: buh-LEEL) for Arming America: Origins of a National Gun Culture have said they will consider rescinding the honors.
Columbia University (N.Y.), which awarded the book the prestigious Bancroft Prize in history, and the Organization of American Historians, which gave Bellesiles an award for a 1996 essay that formed the basis of Arming America, said they are considering revoking their prizes.
Last month, Bellesiles resigned from Emory, effective at the end of the year. Emory announced Bellesiles' resignation along with the findings of an independent panel that evaluated accusations Bellesiles engaged in research misconduct for Arming America.
Arming America claims guns were more rare in early America than previously thought. Bellesiles' claims, based on probate records, militia rolls and other historical documents, cast a new light on the Second Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to bear arms. Bellesiles' book maintains that the constitutional framers intended those freedoms as collective liberties and not as individual rights.
A source close to the controversy said Columbia's board of trustees will meet during the second week of December. The source said the trustees are expected to discuss the possibility of revoking the Bancroft Prize and have asked a group of historians to review the 40-page report released by Emory's external panel at the end of October.
Lauren Marshall, director of public affairs at Columbia, said the school is closely following the controversy and looking into the matter.
"At this time, no decision has yet been reached," Marshall said. Similarly, the OAH may be moving in the same direction. Ira Berlin, president of the OAH and a historian at the University of Maryland, said the group has discussed revoking its Binkley-Stephenson Award, given to Bellesiles in 1996 for an essay published in the group's journal.
Berlin said the Bellesiles case will come up at the next meeting of the group's executive board, though he did not say when the board will next meet.
"The organization has talked about this," Berlin said.
Although Arming America was at first praised in the academic community, many scholars soon became skeptical about the accuracy of the book when Bellesiles' research could not be duplicated.
In the face of escalating charges of research fraud, Emory began an internal inquiry last February, the first in Emory's history to investigate claims that a College professor engaged in research misconduct.
In May, the University expanded its inquiry by appointing an outside panel of three scholars to evaluate five specific questions of alleged misconduct.
The panel said several aspects of Bellesiles' work raised deep concerns, but it could not prove the errors were intentional fabrications because Bellesiles could not provide his research materials. Bellesiles told the committee that most of his notes were lost in the 2000 Bowden Hall flood.
As groups consider revoking their awards, individual scholars are distancing themselves from the book as well. Garry Wills, a Northwestern University (Ill.) historian who wrote a favorable review of the book in The New York Times, wrote in an e-mail that much of Bellesiles' work has been "discredited."
In his book A Necessary Evil, Wills cites Bellesiles' work to refute popular claims that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms.
In his e-mail, Wills wrote that he regrets having professionally associated himself with Bellesiles. "I would not have included it if I had known what I now do, though my basic argument on the Second Amendment is not affected by it," Wills wrote.
Knopf Press, which published Arming America and is said to have plans to print a second edition, did not respond to repeated e-mails and phone calls.
Bellesiles could not be reached for this story.

Columbia Rescinds History Prize for Book; History Prize Rescinded for Controversial Book About Guns in the United States; The Associated Press
NEW YORK Dec. 13 -- Severe doubts about a book on guns in the United States has led Columbia University to rescind the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history.
"Arming America," by Michael Bellesiles, had received the award in 2001. In a statement released Friday, Columbia said that the school's trustees had concluded "his book had not and does not meet the standards ... established for the Bancroft Prize." Columbia has asked Bellesiles to return the prize money, $4,000.
It was the first time in the 54-year history of the Bancroft award that Columbia has taken such actions. Phone and e-mail messages left by The Associated Press with Bellesiles were not immediately returned.

Tarnished history book publication halted; Book's award rescinded, writer has resigned.
NEW YORK (AP) -- Publication has been halted on a disputed book about the history of guns in the United States.
Questions about Michael Bellesiles' "Arming America" had already led Columbia University to rescind the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history.
When Columbia made the announcement last month, publisher Alfred A. Knopf said the book would remain in print. But Jane Garrett, Bellesiles' editor, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the publisher would no longer sell it.
"We are in the process of ending our contractual arrangement with Michael for 'Arming America,' " Garrett said.