This Rajagambhira hill might be identified with either Padavidudrug or Karnatikghar. Padavidudrug is situated very near the village of Padavidu, whereas Karnatikghar is at a dis- tance of seven or eight miles sonth. The latter was strongly fortified, and has even now the fort in a fairly good condition; so it was better fitted to offer an effective resistance to the at- tacks of a powerful army such as that of Kampana rather than Padavidudurgam. But the identification of Karnatikghar with the Rajagambhiramalai is negatived by one of the inscriptions found in Padavidu itself, which fixes the position of Rajagam- bhira hill near Murugamangalappattu; and as this village is in the Arni Division a little to the east of the fort of the Pada- vidudurgam, it is certain that only Padavid udurgam has to be equated with the Rajagambhira hill. This hill received its name from one Rajagambhira Sambuvarayan, an ancestor of the Champaraya of the time of Kampana. Rajagambhira Sambuva. raya lived in the reign of Rajaraja III as a subordinate of that Chola king and flourished about the Saka year 1180.* In his Annual Report on Epigraphy for 1899 Mr. V. Venk- ayya has incorrectly identified the Rajagambhirarajya with the Pandya country, relying on the Tiruppuvanam grant which mentions Rajagambhira as a title of Jatavar man Kulasekhara; but in view of the data now available, this rajya connotes the coun- try surrounding Padavidu and Padavidudurgam, which belonged to Rajagambhira Sambuvaraya. The inscription of Kampana dated in 8 1287, found in Tiruppukkuli near Conjeevaram which records that Kampana Udaiyar son of Bukkana Udaiyar became permanent on the throne after taking possession of Rajagam- bhirarajya no doubt refers to this heroic achievement panegy- rised by his queen in the present kavya. The Madhuravijaya is alone in stating that the Champa- raya who opposed Kampana in the Rajagambhirarajya was killed by the latter. The Sanskrit Ramabhyudaya and the Saluvabhyudaya and the Telugu Jaimini Bharatam and the Varahapurana all agree in asserting that he was either defeated and reinstated in his original place or terrorised into 8. I. Ins.. Vol. I, p. 111.
