Osburn saw the antiquarian world through the eyes of a scholar, more so, than an opportunistic soldier of fortune. As such, his work, errors or not, should be taken at face value. If you add "arches", of which there are none, so, read "gables", and add in "incline leading down to the inner chambers", my two cents worth (if you're willing to take the bet) is on the entrance.
However, Osburn says that the glyphs are "rudely written", meaning by the hand of someone not proficient in the art of inscription - most likely, a quarry worker using an ochre/adhesive mix.
Osburn was very familiar with both cartouches, although mistaken as to the sole identity of the pharaoh thus inscribed, concluding that there were two separate kings ruling contemporaneously.
He does not say that the name of Noh-Suphis (Khnum Khufu) as seen by him in the Great Pyramid was written in a cartouche, but was more like "quarry marks". This is probably the reason that Vyse ignored just the name of Noh-Suphis. He required the name to be in a cartouche to prove a pharaonic provenance.
Allegedly, he discovered such a cartouche in Campbell's Chamber.
What is puzzling is the fact that Vyse did discover the Khnum Khufu cartouche in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber. Why didn't he claim the name of that king enclosed in that cartouche as the builder of the Great Pyramid? Eventually, it would have been found to have been the same person.
Perhaps, he could not decipher it correctly, as it was upside down - the block was laid that way. Did he forge this one too?
Courtesy Robert Schoch
Robert Schoch says the following in his book, "Pyramid Quest":
So, maybe Vyse went with the cartouche which he knew - the simple Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber - and ignored the KK cartouche. It was a better bet, don't you think.
PS. Do they still make two cents any more?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06-Jun-16 01:19 by loveritas.