Is Queen Heo a myth created: A Critical Review of Queen Heo's Mythology by Kim Tae-sik and Lee Kwang-soo

This article has the character of refutation to Kim Tae-sik and Lee Kwang-soo's claim that Queen Heo's mythology was created in the 7th and 8th centuries. Kim Tae-sik and other Lee Kwang-soo consistently claim that Queen Heo's mythology was created in the 7th to 8th centuries, and that several elements were added to the myth when KumGwanJujisa wrote the “Gaehwangnyaku,” and later Ilyeon entered Garakgukgi while compiling “Samkukyusa” Their claims were groundless, only inferences. India's navigation techniques and records at that time, and coins engraved with two sword poles cast in the 2nd century show India's active maritime trade. In addition, the cabin partition wall excavated from Bonghwang-dong shows Gaya's navigation technology. In other words, records and relics suggest maritime trade between India and Gaya. Therefore, as recorded in “Samkukyusa” it shows that Queen Heo arrived at Gaya through the sea. On the other hand, the inscriptions on the Pasa Stone Pagoda and “Gimhae Wolmyeong Historic Site Monument” are concrete evidence that Queen Heo's arrival and Buddhism were introduced to Gaya. The Gimhae Wolmyeong Historic Site Monument clearly states that Wolmyeong Temple was founded in March 144 AD. In addition, the people say that Kim Su-ro and Heo empress are their ancestors through the origin story of Gimhae Kim and Gimhae Heo. Records, relics, and people's memories are all said to have come to Gaya in 48 AD. However, Kim Tae-sik, Lee Kwang-soo, and Baek Seung-chun deny the arrival of Queen Heo in 48 AD. The fundamental reason why they denied Queen Heo's existence was to claim that “Gaya = Imna.” In order to become “Gaya = Imna,” Gaya must not be founded in 42 and Queen Heo must not arrive in 1948. This is because when Queen Heo comes, the world of Gaya must be recognized and Gaya Buddhism must be recognized, so there is no place for Imna to stand.