How do historians define the identity of figures like Gilgamesh who appear in both king lists and mythological epics?

Hey, you've hit the nail on the head! Gilgamesh's identity is indeed a particularly classic and fascinating topic in both history and mythology. Many ancient figures share similar ambiguity, but Gilgamesh is arguably the most famous one.

Simply put, the prevailing view among historians is: Gilgamesh was very likely a real historical figure, but the Epic of Gilgamesh we read today is a literary work that underwent centuries of artistic embellishment and mythologization.

Think of his identity like an "onion." Historians work to peel back its layers, trying to find the "historical core" at the center. They define this primarily through the following perspectives:

1. The "Historical" Evidence: The Sumerian King List

First, let's look at the evidence supporting his historicity.

What is the Sumerian King List? You can think of this as the Sumerians' own "list of dynasties." It records the kings of various city-states and their reigns, starting from (what they considered) the mythical era up to their own time.
Gilgamesh's Place on the List: He is listed as the fifth ruler of the First Dynasty of Uruk, reigning for 126 years. That number sounds pretty exaggerated, right? But compared to the kings before him in the "mythical era," who supposedly reigned for thousands or tens of thousands of years, 126 years seems much more "down-to-earth." This indicates that, in the Sumerians' own view, Gilgamesh marked a transition from the purely mythical era to a heroic age – still extraordinary, but more human-like.
The Historians' View: Historians don't believe he actually lived 126 years, but they argue that his formal inclusion in the King List strongly suggests he was a real, highly influential ruler. While the King List contains mythical elements, it also preserves genuine historical memory.

An analogy: This is similar to how China's Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji) records the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. We might not believe every detail of Shennong tasting hundreds of herbs or the Yellow Emperor battling Chiyou, but we tend to believe that powerful tribal leaders did exist in that ancient era, and their deeds were later mythologized and recorded.

2. The "Mythical" Evidence: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Next, let's examine the evidence for his mythologization.

What does the Epic say? This epic tells the story of Gilgamesh, the demi-god king, who starts out as a tyrant. He then embarks on adventures with his close friend Enkidu, defeating various monsters. After Enkidu's death, Gilgamesh, terrified of his own mortality, sets out on a quest for immortality. He ultimately fails and comes to understand the true meaning of human life.
Clear Literary and Mythical Elements: The story features gods, a great flood, the underworld, the monster Humbaba, the Bull of Heaven... These are clearly not historical records but imaginative literary creations filled with philosophical reflection and religious concepts. The epic explores eternal themes like friendship, death, and the meaning of life.
The Historians' View: The epic is not a history book. It is a monumental literary work that took shape over centuries, even millennia, of oral tradition and written adaptation after King Gilgamesh's death, using him as a prototype. His actual deeds (like possibly building Uruk's walls) were preserved but were greatly exaggerated and mythologized.

3. The Crucial "Third-Party" Evidence: Archaeological Discoveries

This is the most fascinating part, acting as a bridge between "history" and "myth."

While archaeologists haven't found Gilgamesh's tomb, they have discovered inscriptions from other kings. For example, later kings, boasting of their own achievements, would mention things like, "I restored the great walls of Uruk, originally built by the ancient king Gilgamesh."

This point is crucial!

Another analogy: This is like not finding Cao Cao's diary, but later emperors' official documents mentioning, "We must learn from the methods of Emperor Wu (Cao Cao) in his time." This indirectly proves Cao Cao was a real person, not just a character invented by novelists.

These inscriptions show that in the minds of the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia (especially later kings), Gilgamesh was a real, respected ancestor and builder, not a purely fictional mythical figure.

Conclusion: A "Historical-Legendary" Figure

So, historians define Gilgamesh like this:

He is a "historical-legendary" figure.

Historical Core: He was very likely a real king who ruled the Sumerian city-state of Uruk around 2700 BCE. He was probably a significant ruler, achieving feats like constructing massive city walls, which was a monumental accomplishment for the time.
Legendary Mantle: His great deeds left an extremely deep impression on later generations. People continuously recounted his stories. Like a snowball rolling downhill, these stories accumulated more and more mythical elements, heroic exploits, and philosophical reflections, eventually evolving into the Epic of Gilgamesh we know today.

Therefore, Gilgamesh's identity isn't a simple choice between "real" or "fictional." It exists in a state of superposition. He is a figure living on the boundary between history and myth. His story perfectly illustrates how humanity transforms real historical memory into an enduring cultural legend.