Editing Champa (section)

===Overarching theories===
[[File:Shiva Kosa from Champa.jpg|thumb|upright|right|This Cham head of [[Shiva]] was made of [[electrum]] around 800. It decorated a kosa, or metal sleeve fitted to a [[lingam|liṅgam]]. One can recognise Shiva by the tall [[Chignon (hairstyle)|chignon]] hairstyle and by the third eye in the middle of his forehead.]]
[[File:Mão vàng Chăm Pa.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Crown of Champa in 7th and 8th century. (Museum of Vietnamese History)]]
Modern scholarship has been guided by two competing theories in the historiography of Champa. Scholars agree that historically Champa was divided into several regions or principalities spread out from south to north along the coast of modern [[Vietnam]] and united by a common language, culture, and heritage. It is acknowledged that the historical record is not equally rich for each of the regions in every historical period. For example, in the 10th century CE, the record is richest for ''Indrapura''; in the 12th century CE, it is richest for [[Vijaya (Champa)|Vijaya]]; following the 15th century CE, it is richest for ''Panduranga''. Some scholars have taken these shifts in the historical record to reflect the movement of the Cham capital from one location to another. According to such scholars, if the 10th-century record is richest for Indrapura, it is so because at that time Indrapura was the capital of Champa. Other scholars have disputed this contention, holding that Champa was never a united country, and arguing that the presence of a particularly rich historical record for a given region in a given period is no basis for claiming that the region functioned as the capital of a united Champa during that period.<ref>Maspero, ''Le Royaume de Champa'', represented the thesis that Champa was politically unified. Vickery, "Champa Revised", challenges that thesis.</ref><ref group=note>Early colonial era scholars and later DRV and SRV authors treated Champa as a single, unified political body. New academic works on Cham studies begun in late 1980s revised this notion. The majority of scholarship now at least agree that Champa was a series of dynamic coexisting, overlapping polyethnic kingdoms and small principalities.{{harv|Lockhart|2011|pp=22–24}}</ref><ref group=note>Previous histories of Champa such as [[Étienne Aymonier]]'s 1889 ''Tschampa'' and [[Georges Maspero]]'s 1910 ''The Kingdom of Champa'' had provided the ground academic understanding of Champa for almost a century. Maspero represented Champa as a single, unified kingdom, with the Cham explicitly made up nearly entire of its demographics. He also presented a list of 14 presumably Cham dynasties dating back to the 2nd century.{{harv|Lockhart|2011|pp=9–10}}</ref>