Alright...my apologies for the improper abbreviations...I think I was in Junior High before I became aware that "King Tutt" wasn't a "king" but a "Pharaoh", and that his name was "Tutankhamun". (potato potato)
No apology needed mate, but I thought I'd correct you on it because it looks a bit amateurish. The point I should have made is that the normal abbreviation is 'Tut' with just the one 't', although if we're going to have a serious dicussion we may as well stick to proper spellings.
Joking around with names isn't offensive or anything, and all good in its place.
Calling Pharaoh 'the King' isn't really wrong either, and in some cases it's more accurate.
The term 'Pharaoh' has a somewhat broader meaning than 'King' and can be applied to the entire Royal House, perhaps in the same way that we might refer to 'the White House' or 'Buckingham Palace' when we really mean the President or the Queen.
Another name for King, especially in the Old Kingdom is 'Horus' implying that the god was personified within the king. I occasionally include this title as 'Re-Horakty'.
Within the Royal Household, the Royal Personage would be referred to as 'the King'. For example Eye is the Fan Bearer on the Right of the King.
Okay forget my comments about the Book of the Dead, and its absence from the Great Pyramid. Where's the ornamentation of ANY kind?
I'm guessing you meant 'was there . . .?' The answer is 'No.'
For not much better reason than it wasn't the style of the time.
http://sonsothunder.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/khufu_cartouche11.jpg
Maybe if 'I' sign my name on some obscure location on the Empire State Building, 3000 years from now people will think 'I' ordered and paid for its construction. Although I seriously doubt it will still be standing 3 millennia from today.
It doesn't work like that. People will know who built the ESB by looking at the City Records. We can do that for Giza just the same, with the bonus that they're literally set in stone and might arguably outlast New York's.
Incidenatally, there's a lot of speculation that the cartouche in your link wasn't actually scratched there at the time of the Pyramid's construction at all, which leaves a grand total of no inscriptions in there at all. I'm pretty sure Dr Hawass subscribes to this view.
So, my REPEATED question is, besides the above linked inscription, what evidence is used to conclude that the Great Pyramid was the tomb of Khufu?
No that's not the question you were asking. You were asking specifically about inscriptions on or in the Pyramid itself.
There are none, and the cartouche in your link was most certainly not used to identify it. It might even be fake, but it matters little.
To answer your question, the Great Pyramid, while unadorned itself, sat in the middle of a huge temple complex. In this case, it's Khufu's Temple.
Bit of a giveaway.
Before you ask, yes, there were inscriptions about the place, including this one:
That's the Pyramid's name. "Khufu's Horizon'
Not many mysteries here, really.
---
ETA:
<snipped some stuff>
There ARE reasons to question whether or not that inscriptions are authentic:
It would appear that one "Zecharia Sitchin" is responsible for ALL of the consideration that the above inscription was forged.
Alright, now I'm dizzy.
Soz, I wrote my comments above before I read this bit, but no matter, we appear to agree on some shenanigans having happened.
However, despite it's possible bogusness, it makes not a jot of difference as far as knowing that it's Pharaoh Khufu's Pyramid.