Although Michael Vickery, has pointed out that they are not mentioned in later times and that these "-varman" ancestors of Indravarman may easily be explained as posthumous upgrading of the king’s parents, which perhaps already occurred within their lifetimes, the following facts should be taken into account: 1) The inscriptions of the 9th century gave an account of events, i.e. genealogies and relative chronologies, referring to that century itself; 2) One should have great doubts concerning the reliability of later inscriptions that record wrong reign dates and stories about family connections never heard of before, which was pointed out especially by Vickery; 3) later inscriptions omitted very often not only these two kings, but also other important kings (Jayavarman IV mentioned only his three predecessors; Rājendravarman II, the founder of a new dynasty, has omitted in his Bàksĕi Čaṃkrŏṅ inscription K. 286, dated 23 February 948, all his predecessors with the exception of Jayavarman II and Jayavarman III); 4) In the 9th century the "-varman"-title was exclusively reserved for kings (by the way, Rudravarman was no father of a king); 5) It is surprising that later inscriptions were considered more trustworthy than contemporary ones, thus twisting things instead of following a historio-critical method.