his known son, the Prince Sobekemsaf on Cairo Statue CG 386, would then be the future king Sekhemre Shedtawy Sobekemsaf II and father of two of the three Intef kings: Sekhemre-Wepmaat Intef and Nubkheperre Intef based on a doorjamb found on the Luxor-Farsut road in 1992-93 (the doorjamb mentions a king Sobekem[saf] as the father of Nubkheperre Intef--[Nubkheperre] Antef/[Intef] begotten of Sobekem...—but this king must be king Sobekemsaf II since Sobekemsaf Wadjkhaw Sobekemsaf's son was named Sobekemsaf based on Cairo Statue CG 386). Polz's critique of Ryholt's view on Intefmose Daniel Polz also rejected Ryholt's arguments that the praise which a certain king Sobekemsaf lavished onto a king's son named Antefmose or Intefmose on statuette BM EA 13329 has any chronological implications regarding the temporal position of this king after the Intef kings. Polz writes that Ryholt's so-called Point 3: is implicitly assuming that persons with the name Intef formed on the name of two (or three) kings of that name at the time of the 17th Dynasty can be related, yet [this] completely ignores the fact that these kings themselves chose their own names in conscious style of the same kings of the early 11th dynasty - including even assuming additional names such as ("the Great") as [in the case of] Wep-maat Intef. Ryholt's argument on this point do not make sense. Even if one assumes that the prince [named Intefmose] followed one of the Intef 17th Dynasty kings and he was hence a contemporary of the successor of this [Intef] ruler, [this is] but an interpretation that the Prince was honoured at the statue of a ruling king Sobekemsaf - only then would Ryholt's argument with regards to the 17th Dynasty ruler sequence prove meaningful. In contrast, if the [Intefmose] statuette and, therefore, the Prince was chronologically younger than the Intef-kings, and a successor of king Sobekemsaf was recognized, a worship of the prince by a king Sobekemsaf says nothing about the temporal position of the latter [pharaoh] and thus [of] the succession of the [17th dynasty] rulers of that time. Burial The "burial equipment of Sobekemsaf W[adjkhaw] does not contain his prenomen, but can nevertheless be assigned with certainty to this king" since the tomb of Sobekemsaf Shedtawy "was thoroughly robbed in antiquity" by tomb robbers as recorded in Papyrus Abbott III 1-7. On this basis, Kim Ryholt assigns a large heart-scarab, "which was, and indeed still