How do proponents of the Sitchin theory view kings and cities in the king list that are not mentioned or explained by the theory?

Okay, this is a fascinating question because it hits right at a core characteristic of Sitchin's theory: selectivity.

Let me chat about this with you like an old friend who's fairly familiar with the topic.

Regarding the parts of the King List Sitchin didn't mention, supporters typically see it this way:

Hey friend, you've hit the nail on the head with this question. Many people read Sitchin's books and then look at the Sumerian King List and think: "Huh? Sitchin seems to have only picked the parts he wanted to talk about!" That's right, he did exactly that. For those kings and cities he didn't mention, his supporters generally hold the following views. See which one makes more sense to you.

1. Core vs. Secondary: Focusing on the "Main Plot"

Think of Sitchin's theory like a grand sci-fi epic movie. The director's (Sitchin's) lens will naturally follow the protagonists (the Anunnaki) and the key figures directly related to them (like those demi-god kings who lived for thousands or tens of thousands of years).

What Sitchin focused on: Were the kings before the "Great Flood" with absurdly long reigns. Because these "non-human" lifespans perfectly fit his theory of the Anunnaki or their hybrid descendants directly ruling Earth. This is the "main plot."
What Sitchin omitted: Were mostly kings after the "Great Flood," especially those with increasingly normal reigns (decades). In the supporters' view, this part is like the "epilogue" or "side quests." By this time, the Anunnaki had gradually retreated into the background, handing over Earth's management to pure humans. So, the glorious deeds of these human kings aren't as crucial for proving the core argument of "Anunnaki existence."

Put simply, supporters argue that Sitchin wasn't writing a complete history of Sumer; he was writing The Anunnaki Chronicles of Earth. Those unmentioned kings and cities are like background extras or fleeting scenery in a movie – they exist, but don't significantly impact the main story.

2. Evidence of the Transition from "Divine Rule" to "Kingship"

This is a more advanced perspective. Supporters don't see this as an "omission," but rather as evidence that precisely supports the theory.

Think about it: one of the most astonishing features of the Sumerian King List is how the kings' reigns drastically shorten from "implausibly long" to "normal range."

Early Period (Sitchin's focus): Reigns of tens of thousands, thousands of years – explained as the Anunnaki (immortal) or demi-god descendants (extremely long-lived) being in power.
Later Period (Sitchin didn't elaborate on): Reigns of decades, years – matching ordinary humans.

Supporters would say: "See! Doesn't this precisely illustrate the transfer of power?" The "divine" Anunnaki bloodline gradually diluted through generations of intermarriage with humans, leading to shorter lifespans for rulers, eventually returning to mortal lengths. Therefore, the existence of those unmentioned, normally-lived kings is actually the final outcome of this "decline of divine rule, rise of kingship" process. Their presence completes the logical chain of the entire story.

3. Incomplete Information or Difficult Interpretation

There's also a more pragmatic view. Supporters might argue that ancient clay tablet records are inherently fragmentary, and their translation and interpretation are fraught with controversy.

As a writer, Sitchin would naturally prioritize the clearest, most compelling, and most supportive materials for his arguments. Kings with ambiguous records, disputed names, or unremarkable deeds might be selectively ignored to avoid making his entire theoretical framework appear overly complex and messy.

Supporters might say: "It's not that Sitchin didn't want to explain them; it's likely that the records for those kings weren't particularly special, or were too fragmentary to extract any information relevant to the Anunnaki."

To Summarize

Overall, for supporters of Sitchin's theory, those "ignored" kings and cities do not shake the foundation of the entire theory. They believe:

Either, they were pure human rulers of the "post-Anunnaki era," falling outside the theory's core scope.
Or, their existence and normal lifespans precisely prove the gradual fading of the "gods'" bloodline and influence, serving as corroborating evidence for the theory.
Or, it's simply an issue with the historical sources themselves, leaving little worth delving into.

So, when you ask a die-hard Sitchin fan this question, they likely won't see it as a flaw. Instead, they might feel it makes the entire narrative – from direct divine rule, to demi-god heroes, and finally to mortal kings – seem more complete and authentic.