Can it be argued that the Sumerian King List is a hybrid product of 'mythologization of history' and 'historicization of myth', rather than a pure historical record?

Hey friend! You've hit the nail on the head with this question, and using the terms "mythologizing history" and "historicizing myth" to describe it is spot-on professional precision.

The answer to your question is: Absolutely yes, and this is precisely the key to understanding the Sumerian King List. It is absolutely not a "pure historical record" in the sense we understand today, but rather a meticulously crafted "epic official document" serving specific political and cultural purposes.

Let me break it down in plain language why it's a mixture of both.

What is the Sumerian King List?

First, we need to know what this thing is.

You can think of it as the "official genealogy" or "record of royal succession" for a dynasty in ancient Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq). It's not a book, but a list inscribed on clay tablets, recording the transfer of kingship between various cities and the names and reigns of each ruler, starting from "the beginning of creation."

But the peculiar part is its content.

1. "Mythologizing History": Packaging Myth and Legend as Real History

This is mainly seen in the first half of the King List, especially the part before the Great Flood.

Kingship Descends from Heaven: The very first line of the King List states: "When kingship descended from heaven..." This itself is not a historical record, but a mythological concept. It presents the political institution of "kingship" as directly granted by the gods, cloaking the ruler in a divine mantle. This takes a core myth (divine right of kings) and presents it as the beginning of history.
Gods as Kings: The eight kings before the Flood had reigns of absurdly long durations, often tens of thousands of years (e.g., the first king, Alulim, reigned for 28,800 years). These are clearly not humans; they resemble immortal "gods" or "demi-gods" from myth. The compilers seriously placed these ancient deities or cultural heroes from legend into the sequence of the King List, assigning them specific ruling locations and reign lengths, making them appear like genuine "historical figures."
The Great Flood: The King List uses a "Great Flood" as a dividing line, separating the mythological era from the heroic era. This likely stems from memories of actual catastrophic floods in the region, but here it is shaped into a mythological event – divine punishment and the world's rebirth. A natural disaster is imbued with mythological meaning and becomes a historical turning point.

Simply put, "mythologizing history" means taking the story of "long, long ago, when gods ruled on earth" and writing it up as what looks like a serious "historical archive."

2. "Historicizing Myth": Adding Mythical Haloes to Real People

This is mainly seen in the latter half of the King List, especially after the Great Flood.

Heroic Kings: After the Flood, the reigns of kings begin to shorten, decreasing from thousands of years to hundreds, and then to decades. This section includes some real historical figures for whom we can find traces in other archaeological evidence or texts. The most famous example is Gilgamesh.
- The historical Gilgamesh was likely a real king of the city-state of Uruk.
- But in the King List, he is recorded as reigning for 126 years – still a supernatural lifespan for that time.
- And in the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, he is portrayed as a demi-god hero, immensely strong, battling divine beings, and embarking on a quest for immortality. This is classic "historicizing myth": a real historical figure, due to extraordinary achievements, is embellished over time by later generations and ultimately "deified" into a legendary hero.
Exaggerated Deeds and Reigns: The King List presents a very "linear" logic of rule: only one "hegemonic" city at a time, with kingship passing from City A to City B, then to City C. But real history was messier; many city-states coexisted and competed simultaneously. The King List's narrative simplifies this complex "multi-state rivalry" into a straightforward "rotation of kingship." This itself is a "mythologizing" treatment for the sake of narrative, making history appear more orderly and conforming to a logic of "divine mandate."

Simply put, "historicizing myth" means taking the fact that "one of our ancestor kings was really powerful" and exaggerating it into the legend that "he was practically a living god."

Conclusion: What Exactly Is It?

So, back to your question, the Sumerian King List is absolutely not a pure record. It's more like:

A piece of political propaganda serving the rulers of its time.

Its primary purpose was not to objectively record history, but to legitimize contemporary kingship. By compiling such a list, the kings of the time (especially the Isin dynasty, which was most active in writing and revising the list) wanted to tell everyone:

Divine Right of Kings: Our power comes from the gods; it has existed since the creation.
Legitimate Succession: We are the sole, legitimate heirs in this sacred chain of kingship. See, kingship descended from heaven, passed through so many great cities and kings, and now it's our turn.
Universal Sovereignty: Since ancient times, there has only been one supreme ruler, and we are that ruler now.

Therefore, you can view the Sumerian King List as an "state-sanctioned epic", not a "history textbook". It skillfully weaves together myth, legend, and real historical figures to create a self-serving "interpretation of history," containing both shadows of real history and rich mythological coloring.

Your description of it as a "hybrid product" is truly spot-on!