was governor of Coptos" in Year 3 of Nubkheperre Intef. This box "was part of the funerary equipment of an Hornakht (formerly known as 'Aqhor' in the past literature) who lived under Seqenenre." While no one knows precisely when Hornakht died, the fact that his funerary equipment contained a box which belonged to Minemhat suggests that Nubkheperre Intef and Seqenenre Tao ruled closely in time and that their reigns should not be separated by the intrusion of various other long lived kings of the 17th dynasty such as Sekhemre Wajdkhaw Sobekemsaf I who is attested by a Year 7 inscription. As the late Middle Kingdom German Egyptologist Detlef Franke (1952–2007) succinctly wrote in a journal article which was published in 2008—a year after his death: Contrary to Ryholt, I see no place for a king Sobekemsaf who ruled after Nubkheperra Antef. Nubkheperra Antef (c.1560 BC) is the best attested (from Abydos to Edfu, e.g. BM 631, EA 1645, coffin 6652) and [the] most important of the three Antefs. In addition, Polz argued that Ryholt's rejection of the evidence in Cairo Statue CG 386—which named king Sekhemre Wadjkhaw Sobekemsaf's son as another Sobekemsaf—in not giving any indication of the sequence of the known 17th dynasty Theban rulers is untenable. While Ryholt acknowledges in his 1997 book on the Second Intermediate Period that Anthony Spalinger suggested the prince Sobekemsaf who is attested in "a statue from Abydos (Cairo CG 386)" and "has the additional title of prophet, may be identical with Sobkemsaf II Sekhemreshedtawy", Ryholt simply writes that: this identification is not possible with the [i.e., my] present arrangement of the two Sobkemsaf kings according to which one Sobkemsaf, Sekhemreshedtawy, ruled before to the Antef group [of kings] and the other, Sekhemrewadjkhaw, after them. Polz notes that although Sekhemre Wadjkhaw Sobekemsaf ruled in a time during the Second Intermediate Period when few documentary sources exist, one cannot simply accept Ryholt's theory that Sekhemre Wadjkhaw Sobekemsaf I's son and designated successor did not succeed his own father as the next king merely because Ryholt's hypothesis did not allow another Sobekemsaf to follow Sekhemre Wadjkhaw Sobekemsaf on the throne due to his theory of the succession of 17th dynasty kings as being: Sekhemre-Shedtawy Sobekemsaf->Sekhemre-Wepmaat Intef->Nubkheperre Intef->Sekhemre-Heruhirmaat Intef->Sekhemre Wadjkhaw Sobekemsaf->Senakhtenre->etc. Indeed, Polz stresses rather that it is more logical to view Sekhemre Wadjkhaw Sobekemsaf I as a predecessor of the Intef line of kings instead;