Having spent many years reading all that I can find on the historic Arthur, I have to say that Graham Phillips has the best, possibly provable, theory on who was the historic Arthur, and where he might be buried. This site, gives his ideas, along with some wonderful photos
The story of King Arthur is known throughout the world. The fabled Camelot, Sir Bedivere casting Excalibur into the lake and Arthur’s secret burial at the isle of Avalon: these are just a few of the enchanting themes in the ancient saga that historians have long considered to be pure fantasy. Now, in The Lost Tomb of King Arthur, Graham Phillips presents compelling evidence that such legends were actually based on real events. During a quest lasting over twenty-five years, he has followed a fascinating trail of historical clues showing Arthur to have been a living warrior who led the Britons around the year 500. He has discovered that the legendary Camelot, Excalibur and Avalon were based on a real city, a real sword and a real island. And, most astonishing of all, Graham has found what he claims to be the location where Arthur was finally buried. An ancient manuscript still persevered at Oxford University, Graham believes, reveals the whereabouts of King Arthur’s long-lost tomb. Not in the South West town of Glastonbury, as the popular myth maintains, but at an ancient site in the isolated countryside of central England. With the help of archaeologists employing the very the latest scientific equipment, Graham now has what he is certain is the final proof that this disregarded Dark Age text really does reveal
Graham Phillips postulates an interesting theory of the identity of King Arthur and his tomb, however it seems to be based on more speculation than evidence, and in that respect offers no more basis than other hypotheses surrounding the real King Arthur. There is much more evidence that the historical Arthur was son of Aidan MacGabhran 532-608, King of Dal Riata, Scotland, after whom Edinburgh is named. Nevertheless, all discussion is valuable and offers new clues to the origins of Arthur, and in that respect is well worth consideration.
Oh, we shall probably never know who Arthur was, or even if he ever existed. Early writers, such as Nennius (9th century) and Mallory (15th century) claim to be working from earlier documents. If such documents exist, they have never been verified, and perhaps there lie in some moldy archive somewhere and will be discovered one day, but it is doubtful, at this point, that they shall.
I like Phillips’ postulation because it suggests that we have been looking for the wrong name all along…that Arthur was simply the title, and that his real name was Owain Ddantgwyn. This gives us some hope that the mystery of the existence of King Arthur can be solved by searching for this person, instead of for Arthur