Accordingly, the "earliest in the Society Islands A. ∼1025–1120, dispersal continued in one major pulse to all remaining islands A. ∼1190–1290." Using plant fossils, charcoal deposit particulates and organic samples and high-precision radiocarbon dating there has been evidence of influences from humans sometimes determined to be around 1000 AD in Kaua'i.Carbon dating is often criticized in creationist circles as unreliable.By 2010 some of the latest researchers using high-precision radiocarbon dating and more reliable samples established that the period of eastern and northern Polynesian colonization took, in a shorter time frame and much later than.Note from the perspective of Hawaiian settlement are the colonization dates for the Society Islands and the Marquesas, as these two archipelagoes have long been considered to be the immediate source regions for the first Polynesian voyagers to Hawai‘i.
For instance the preliminary samples tested by Emory and Sinoto who raced to determine first contact had rather large standard deviations, reflecting the crude solid-carbon counting methods first used by the pioneers of the radiocarbon dating method.Anyone more knowledgable than I am willing to take this up?Great Cthulhu , 1 September 2005 (UTC) The cases were not disputed because of cosmic rays, they were disputed because the creationists who cited them did not understand carbon dating.I believe this is due to some cases in which the method yielded results that were later effectively disputed (possibly because the carbon dating made a constant cosmic ray flux assumption), but I don't know enough about this to be sure.I think it would be a valuable addition to this article if some mention of these arguments were made, preferably with counterarguments.With the invention of radiocarbon dating archaeologists immediately scoured the islands in search of the earliest possible samples.