Does Sitchin's theory regard the King List as a precise record of Anunnaki rule on Earth?

Hey, regarding this question, the answer isn't a simple "yes" or "no". A more accurate way to put it is: Sitchin believed the Sumerian King List was a record based on real historical events, but it is not a "historical archive" in the word-for-word accurate sense we understand today.

You could think of it this way: Sitchin saw it as a "mythologized" account of historical facts. Let me break down his reasoning to make it clearer.

1. Why did Sitchin believe it recorded the rule of the Anunnaki?

The core of Sitchin's theory is that ancient myths are actually records of real historical events, but described by ancient people using concepts they could understand (gods, magic, supernatural forces) to explain technology and alien visitors (the Anunnaki) that were beyond their comprehension.

For him, the Sumerian King List was key evidence. Mainly for two reasons:

• Extraordinarily Long Reigns: The King List records that the eight kings before the Great Flood had reigns lasting tens of thousands of years (e.g., the first king, Alulim, ruled for 28,800 years). This seems impossible for humans. But Sitchin explained that these weren't Earth years! The Anunnaki came from their home planet Nibiru, whose orbital period around the sun is 3,600 Earth years. Therefore, these "years" might be based on the Nibiru cycle, or represent an exaggerated record by the Sumerians of these "gods'" long lifespans. For Sitchin, this precisely proved these "kings" were not ordinary humans.
• "Kingship Descended from Heaven": The King List opens by stating "When kingship descended from heaven, kingship was first in Eridu. In Eridu, Alulim became king." For Sitchin, this was direct evidence – "heaven" meant outer space, and kingship (royal authority) was brought to Earth by these extraterrestrial visitors, the Anunnaki.

2. Why is it "not precise"?

This is the crucial point. Sitchin did not believe that Sumerian priests or scribes meticulously recorded every detail of the Anunnaki like modern historians with a notebook.

He believed the Sumerian King List was more like a handed-down memory, distorted over millennia of oral tradition and transcription.

Think of it like hearing a story from your great-great-grandfather about hunting in his youth:

• The Core Fact (Sitchin's believed historical truth): He did indeed hunt and kill a large wild boar when he was young.
• The Story Passed Down (The Sumerian King List): By the time it reaches you, the story might become "He killed a monster as big as a house with his bare hands back then!"

The core of the story (killing a wild boar) is true, but the specific details (bare hands, house-sized) are greatly exaggerated and mythologized.

So, Sitchin viewed the King List similarly:

• The Core Facts are True: There were indeed extraterrestrial "kings" (Anunnaki) who established rule on Earth; they had extremely long lifespans; and they experienced a Great Flood.
• The Recorded Details are Imprecise: The specific reign lengths (like 28,800 years) were likely symbolic, or a misunderstanding of units of time, rather than precise chronology. The king names listed might also have been merged, simplified, or altered.

To Summarize

So, back to your question: Does Sitchin's theory consider the King List a precise record of the Anunnaki's rule on Earth?

The answer is: No, he did not consider it "precise," but he firmly believed it was "true."

For him, the Sumerian King List was not a rigorous historical record like the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian), but more like a severely damaged and faded "treasure map." The information on the map isn't entirely accurate and can even be misleading, but the treasure it points to (the historical reality of Anunnaki rule on Earth) genuinely exists. Sitchin's work was an attempt to "decipher" and "restore" this map to uncover the underlying truth.