In reply to Roger Bailey (June 14), radiocarbon dating provides the most solid evidence that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand.
A research team, led by Janet Wilmshurst Ph.D. from Landcare Research, published a scientific paper with radiocarbon evidence in 2011.
They radiocarbon dated historical sites throughout Polynesia. These gave a range for first settlement of New Zealand as AD 1230 – 1282. They found no evidence of human settlement before then. This paper can be found at www.pnas.org 'High precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of east Polynesia”.
They also updated the information in Ian Wishart's book The Great Divide. Radiocarbon dating methods have improved over recent years. Wishart's radiocarbon date of 900 to 1000 AD is now considered unreliable. (He uses figures published in the year 2000.)
If recent radiocarbon dating is taken as the most reliable evidence available, then adzes that Julius von Haast in 1871 claimed to be over 1000 years old, may have been less than 400 years old. Fjordland gets earthquakes and the heaviest rainfall in New Zealand so it would be easy for an adze left in the bush for 400 years to end up beneath 6 metres of soil. Buried adzes of unknown age cannot be as reliable for evidence as modern radiocarbon dating.
In reply to A.Taylor (June 21), professional historians regard radiocarbon dating as more reliable than oral history if there is any conflict between them.
The New Oxford History of New Zealand (2009) has 23 co-authors. They include Professors and Associate Professors of History from five New Zealand universities. They state (page 27) 'As redating of early archaeological sites throughout New Zealand has found none older than the thirteenth century, it is probable that people first arrived around AD 1200.”

Peter Dey, Welcome Bay.