I don't know what documentary evidence Peter Dey (Sun 8 June) has to back his statements 'Maori were the first settlers in NZ” and 'There were no Moriori here before Maori arrived”.
Maureen Anderson in her letter mentions some of the historical documented finds around the country as evidence to the contrary.
Here is some additional published evidence to the contrary.
Julius von Haast in 1868 visited Bruce Bay on the West Coast, and was given a stone chisel and a sharpening stone which had been found five metres deep in the ground under a massive tree. They were found by gold miners clearing a claim of trees.
The trees were of a size to be 1000 years old. The site was estimated to be 1,500 to 2000 years old (Source Ian Wishart's book The Great Divide).
A South Island Moa-hunters site has been carbon dated and the results suggests it could have been used around 900 to 1000 AD. (Source Ian Wishart's book The Great Divide).
The suggested date of 1350 AD for Maori migration could not account for either of the above pieces of evidence.
Ian Wishart's new book puts forward a great deal of documented evidence to prove that there were people living on the islands of New Zealand long before the Maori arrived.
I personally don't really care who was here first, but what does annoy me are the numerous claims unsupported by any solid evidence that Maori were the first race to colonise the country.
I find it annoying also that neither those for or against this argument are prepared to accept anything as evidence the opposing argument produces.
Ian Wishart's new book is excellent, easy and informative reading. It will also illustrate, amongst other matters, that the history of the Taranaki Lands Wars as we were taught at secondary school was incorrect. Another excellent and enlightening book is Encircled Lands by Judith Binney which covers Te Urewera, 1820 – 1921 and is also based on documentary evidence. Good reading.

Roger Bailey, Papamoa.