Why Do Mainstream Sumerologists Generally Oppose Equating Kings in the King List with the Anunnaki? What Are Their Main Arguments?

Hello! That's an excellent question, and it's indeed a stumbling block many people interested in Sumerian civilization encounter, especially after encountering some of the "ancient astronaut" theories online.

Mainstream Sumerologists (those experts studying ancient texts and excavating ruins at universities) are almost 100% opposed to equating the early kings in the Sumerian King List with the Anunnaki. This isn't because they are closed-minded, but rather a conclusion drawn from decades of research and evidence concerning Sumerian civilization.

Let's break down their main arguments in plain language. It's actually quite straightforward, boiling down to these key points:

1. The "Cast List" and the "Pantheon" Are Not the Same Thing

Think of the Sumerian King List as an ancient "royal chronology" or "record of kingship succession." In contrast, accounts of the Anunnaki, like the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish (Creation Epic), are more like "collections of myths" or a "pantheon of gods."

The Sumerian King List: Its core function was political propaganda. Its central message was the "divine right of kings" – meaning that earthly "kingship" was bestowed upon humanity by the gods from heaven. It passed from one city to another, finally reaching "me" (the reigning king). Therefore, my rule is legitimate and sacred. It was a document serving the legitimacy of human rulers.
Anunnaki Mythology: This was the religion and worldview of the Sumerians. The Anunnaki were the gods worshipped in their temples, such as Anu (Sky God), Enlil (Lord Wind/Chief God), and Enki (God of Wisdom and Water). They were beings who created the world, controlled the elements, and determined human fate. Human kings were meant to worship them by building temples, praying for good harvests and national prosperity.

A simple analogy: It's like conflating Emperor Qin Shi Huang or Emperor Wu of Han from the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji) with the Jade Emperor or Laozi from Journey to the West. Emperor Qin Shi Huang performed sacrifices to Heaven (worshipping the gods) at Mount Tai, but he himself was not a god. Sumerian kings were the same; they were the "agents" of the gods, not the gods themselves.

2. Names and "Job Descriptions" Don't Match

This is the most direct evidence.

Different Names: Look at the kings with extraordinarily long reigns before the flood in the King List – names like Alulim and Alalngar. In Sumerian mythology, the highest-ranking Anunnaki gods are Anu, Enlil, and Enki. The names simply don't match. The Sumerians made a clear distinction; nowhere in any cuneiform tablet does it say "King Alulim is the great god Enki."
Different Roles: The king's duties were to govern cities, lead wars, and build temples and canals. The Anunnaki's duties involved holding "divine assemblies," deciding human fate, and controlling natural forces. In Sumerian stories, kings approached the gods with utmost reverence, even trembling when receiving divine instructions in dreams. This clear master-servant relationship proves they couldn't be the same entities.

3. Extraordinarily Long-Lived "Antediluvian Kings" Are a Common Literary Device

The aspect of the King List that most makes people think "these must be aliens" is the reigns of tens of thousands of years for kings before the flood. For example, the first king, Alulim, reigned for 28,800 years.

However, this trope of "extremely long lifespans for ancient sage-kings" is actually a standard literary device in ancient civilizations, not something unique or strange.

The Bible: Methuselah lived for 969 years.
Ancient Egypt: In their mythology, the era when gods ruled as pharaohs was also impossibly long.
Ancient China: There are legends like "Peng Zu lived for 800 years."

This writing style wasn't meant to record actual ages but to express an idea: "In that distant Golden Age, closer to the gods, everything was better, even human lifespans were vastly longer than now." It's a romanticized imagining of antiquity, used to add a sense of historical depth and sacredness. As the King List records approach the "modern" era (for the Sumerians), the kings' reigns rapidly shorten to hundreds of years, eventually settling into the normal range of decades. This precisely shows that the Sumerians themselves clearly distinguished between the "antediluvian era" and the "historical era."

4. Archaeological Evidence Offers No Support

If the kings were the Anunnaki (aliens), shouldn't their palaces or tombs contain things far ahead of their time?

Yet, they don't. The Sumerian royal tombs excavated by archaeologists, like the famous Royal Tombs of Ur, contain kings and queens with standard human skeletons. While the burial goods are incredibly lavish and exquisite (gold, lapis lazuli artifacts), they are entirely products of the technology of that era, with no "advanced tech" or "alien artifacts."

To Summarize

Therefore, the main arguments mainstream Sumerologists use to oppose the equivalence theory are:

Different Nature: The King List is a political document; myths are religious beliefs. They serve different purposes.
Different Identities: Kings were servants of the gods, acting as divine agents on earth; the Anunnaki were gods, the objects of the kings' worship. Names and roles don't match.
The Longevity Issue: Extraordinarily long reigns are a common ancient literary exaggeration used to mythologize the distant past, not a record of actual alien lifespans.
Lack of Evidence: Not a single Sumerian tablet or archaeological find supports the idea that the kings were the Anunnaki. This concept is a modern interpretation (primarily by author Zecharia Sitchin), not something originating from the Sumerians themselves.

Ultimately, experts prefer to understand Sumerian texts within their own cultural, political, and religious context, rather than forcing them into a modern "alien" framework. Hope this explanation helps clarify their perspective!