A couple of nuggests from Dr. V.Rajesh's, Manuscripts, Memory and History: Classical Tamil Literature in Colonial India, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 2013
“It is scarcely possible to conceive a greater confusion than that which prevails with reference to the question of the age of Sambhanda. Mr.Taylor places Kun Pandya, and therefore Sambandha also, who converted him, about 1320 B.C., while Dr.Caldwell contends he was reigning in 1292 A.D. Thus it would appear possible to assign Sambandha to 1300 B.C. or A.D. indifferently! This is certainly curious: and I am not sure if we can find the like of it in the whole range of history. Indeed, it would seem that South Indian chronology has yet to begin its existence. We have not, in fact, as yet a single important date in the ancient history of the Dravidians ascertained and placed beyond the pale of controversy.
A critical study of (the classical) dialect and of this literature would certainly, under ordinary circumstances, be held as a pre-requisite for conducting South-Indian antiquarian researches. But, unfortunately, for reasons that cannot be here explained, critical scholarship in Tamil has come to be regarded as not so essential to those researches. Hence absurdities that we sometimes we meet with in the writings of those whose oracular utterances pass in certain quarters for axiomatic truths.”
இவ்வாறு காரமாக எழுதி, ஆய்வில் கறார்த்தன்மையைக் கோரியிருக்கும் இவ்வாசிரியர் யார்: பிற்காலத்தில் மனோன்மணியம் எழுதிய, இன்று கிட்டத்தட்ட அந்த முன்னொட்டின் மூலமாக மட்டுமே அறியப்படும் பெ.சுந்தரம்பிள்ளை தான் அவர்!