Is there a risk of 'circular reasoning' in using the King List as a central pillar of the Anunnaki theory?

Okay, let's talk about this fascinating topic.

The King List and the Anunnaki: A "Chicken or the Egg" Logical Trap?

Friend, you've hit the nail on the head with this question. The answer is: Yes, using the Sumerian King List as the central pillar of the Anunnaki theory carries a very significant risk of "circular reasoning." In fact, one could argue that the very construction of this theory is a classic case of circular reasoning.

To make it easier to understand, let's skip the complex academic jargon and break it down with a simple everyday example.

Let's Play a Little Game: "Xiao Ming's Magic Book"

Imagine I tell you: "Hey, my friend Xiao Ming has a magic book that can grant any wish!"

You'd probably ask: "Really? Any proof?"

I say: "The proof is in an ancient book! It records that 'there was once a man named Xiao Ming who descended from the heavens, holding a divine object, capable of anything.'"

You then ask: "But is that ancient book necessarily true? What if it's just a myth?"

I reply: "Of course that book is true because it describes Xiao Ming and his magic book! Think about it, if Xiao Ming didn't have the magic book, why would the ancients write that he was 'capable of anything'?"

Do you see the problem?

My Argument (A): Xiao Ming has a magic book.
My Evidence (B): An ancient book records an all-powerful man.
My Proof for the Evidence's Reliability: Because Xiao Ming has the magic book, the ancient record is reliable.

I'm using "the ancient record" to prove "the existence of the magic book," and then using "the existence of the magic book" to prove that "the ancient record is true." This is a perfect logical closed loop – it proves itself, which is logically unsound.

Now, Replace "Xiao Ming" with "Anunnaki"

Now let's apply this logic to the Anunnaki theory and the Sumerian King List. You'll find it's strikingly similar:

Core Argument of the Anunnaki Theory (A): A group of long-lived aliens from the planet Nibiru (the Anunnaki) came to Earth and ruled as the earliest rulers (gods).
Core Evidence Supporting This Argument (B): The Sumerian King List records that before the "Great Flood," 8 kings reigned for a total of 241,200 years, averaging over 30,000 years per king. Such extreme lifespans couldn't belong to Earth humans, so they must be aliens.

Now, let's build this circular reasoning:

Questioner: "What makes you say the Anunnaki theory is true?" Supporter: "Look at the Sumerian King List! It records kings reigning for tens of thousands of years – isn't that evidence of the Anunnaki's longevity?" (Using B to prove A)
Questioner: "But couldn't those exaggerated numbers in the King List just be myth, symbolism, or a misinterpretation of counting units? Many early civilizations worldwide have mythical chronologies with super-long reigns." Supporter: "That can't be myth! Because the Anunnaki, as aliens, have a physiology that allows for such long lifespans, so the King List is recording real history!" (Using A to prove B)

See? The logic closes perfectly:

The King List's extreme reigns are real because they prove the existence of the long-lived Anunnaki. And the long-lived Anunnaki exist, so the King List's extreme reigns record facts.

This is like stepping on your own feet to reach the sky. It can seem self-consistent within its own system but gains no valid, independent support from outside.

From a Historical Research Perspective, Where's the Problem?

History and archaeology are rigorous disciplines that rely on multiple, independent lines of evidence.

No Single Proof Suffices (孤证不立): A single text, the Sumerian King List, especially its most mythological parts, cannot be directly accepted as reliable history. You need other, independent sources of evidence for cross-verification. For example, are there contemporary archaeological sites, records from other civilizations, or scientifically plausible physical evidence supporting "reigns of tens of thousands of years"? Currently, none exists.
Occam's Razor Principle: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Simply put, if two explanations both fit the facts, the simpler one, requiring fewer assumptions, is usually closer to the truth.
- Explanation One (Anunnaki Theory): Requires assuming the existence of an unknown planet, an alien life form we don't understand, their mastery of faster-than-light travel, their need for gold to repair an atmosphere, their knowledge of genetic engineering... This chain of assumptions each requires massive evidence.
- Explanation Two (Historical/Mythological Explanation): Early humans often expressed their understanding of "antiquity" and the "divine" through large numbers. This is a literary and cultural device used to signify the "divinity" of those rulers and the "greatness" of that era. Similar examples can be found in ancient Egypt, ancient India, and even the Bible. This explanation requires introducing no aliens and fits entirely within the framework of human cognition and cultural development.

Clearly, Explanation Two is much simpler and more consistent with our understanding of other ancient civilizations.

Conclusion

So, back to your question: Using the King List as the central pillar of the Anunnaki theory undoubtedly carries a huge risk of "circular reasoning."

The Sumerian King List: It is an extremely precious historical artifact, providing an invaluable window into the Sumerians' historical perspective, political structure, and cultural beliefs.
The Anunnaki Theory: It is a modern reinterpretation (popularized by Zecharia Sitchin) of these ancient texts. This interpretation is very appealing and full of imagination, but it suffers from a fundamental logical flaw in its argumentation.

You can view the Anunnaki theory as a very entertaining sci-fi story, cleverly weaving together ancient myths and modern scientific concepts. But to treat it as serious history, it must withstand rigorous testing by logic and evidence – and on the issue of "circular reasoning," it clearly doesn't hold water.