How do proponents of the Anunnaki theory respond to the mainstream view that 'king lists were political tools serving the legitimacy of rulers at the time'?

Okay, let's dive into this fascinating topic. This question really gets to the heart of the core divergence between mainstream historiography and the Anunnaki theory worldview.

To understand how Anunnaki theory proponents respond, we need to peel back the layers, like an onion.

First, we need to clarify the mainstream view

Mainstream historians and archaeologists argue that the Sumerian King List shouldn't be treated as a purely objective "history book." It's more like a piece of "propaganda."

Think of it this way: An ancient city-state king, let's call him "Ur-Zababa," comes to power. How does he convince his people and neighboring kings that his rule is "divinely ordained" and "legitimate"?

He would have his priests and scribes compile a document stating:

"Long, long ago, 'Kingship' descended from heaven, first given to City A, passed down for N generations; then given to City B, passed down for M generations... Now, after a series of sacred transmissions, 'Kingship' has finally come to us, to the great Ur-Zababa!"

See? With this, his legitimacy is instantly established. He didn't seize power; he inherited a "divine mandate" originating from the gods. As for the names and reigns of the earlier kings, they could be edited, exaggerated, and arranged as needed. This is what's meant by a "political tool serving the purpose of legitimizing rule."

So, how do Anunnaki theory proponents "counter" this?

Faced with this strong and logically coherent mainstream argument, Anunnaki theory proponents don't outright reject it entirely. Their response is usually more nuanced and can be summarized in the following points:

1. "Why can't both be true?" – The Overlay Logic

This is their core argument. They say: "We agree the King List was used as a political tool in its time, but being used as a political tool and recording real (though distorted) history are not mutually exclusive."

An analogy: Imagine you are a CEO. To motivate your employees, you tell the legendary story of how the company founder started from scratch and overcame immense challenges. You might embellish details to make the story more inspiring.
The mainstream view would say: "See, your purpose in telling this story is to motivate employees; it's a management tool."
The Anunnaki proponent would say: "Correct, it is his management tool. But the 'company founder' was a real person, and the core fact of him starting from scratch is true. We cannot dismiss the kernel of truth in the story simply because the speaker had a 'political purpose.'"

Therefore, they argue, later Sumerian kings were merely leveraging an older, more authentic history of 'gods' (i.e., the Anunnaki) ruling on Earth to bolster their own legitimacy. The political purpose is the "surface," while Anunnaki rule is the "core."

2. "The Unexplainable 'Extraordinarily Long Reigns'" – Anomalous Data is Key

This is one of their strongest "pieces of evidence." The King List records that the eight kings before the Great Flood reigned for a combined total of 241,200 years, averaging over thirty thousand years each.

Mainstream explanation: This is symbolic language expressing "divinity" and "remoteness"; the numbers themselves have no literal meaning and are meant to convey "impressive grandeur."
Anunnaki proponent counter: "Really? If you were a king trying to fabricate ancestors to elevate your status, would you invent reigns lasting tens of thousands of years? That's so absurd it would undermine your credibility. Wouldn't inventing 'ancient sage-kings' reigning for a few hundred years be more plausible and effective?"

They argue that these "anomalous data points" are precisely not fabrications but rather clumsy memories and transcriptions of a real situation. According to their theory, the Anunnaki, as an extraterrestrial race, had lifespans vastly exceeding humans. Tens of thousands of years for them might be like decades for us. Later Sumerians, unable to comprehend this timescale, could only record it as they understood it (or literally), leaving behind these seemingly absurd numbers.

These "implausible" elements, in their view, are actually proof of a "historical echo."

3. "Not Just the King List, but a 'Story Universe'" – Cross-Verification

They point out that the Sumerian King List is not an isolated text. Figures mentioned within it, such as "Enmerkar" and "Gilgamesh," also appear as protagonists in other Sumerian epics and myths (like the Epic of Gilgamesh).

This creates an interconnected "story universe" that cross-references itself. If the King List were purely fabricated for political purposes, why go to such lengths to weave such detailed, complex stories about these figures, filled with interactions between gods (Anunnaki) and demigods?

They contend this resembles a people using different literary forms (king lists, epics, myths) to record and transmit core memories of the same "era of human-divine coexistence."

4. "The Great Flood" – An Unavoidable Dividing Line

The King List explicitly states that "after the Flood had swept over, kingship descended from heaven again." Not only did the location of kingship change after the Flood, but the length of reigns also plummeted from tens of thousands of years to mere hundreds or decades.

Mainstream explanation: The Great Flood is a common creation myth motif in the ancient Near East, used as a dramatic demarcation point.
Anunnaki proponents believe: This marks a real historical event. The Flood (possibly corresponding geologically to the rapid sea-level rise at the end of the Younger Dryas event) did indeed destroy the previous civilization cycle. After the Flood, the Anunnaki's mode of rule and level of intervention on Earth changed. It's even possible that a new generation of "hybrid" rulers (with shorter lifespans) emerged, leading to the precipitous drop in reign lengths.

To summarize

So, you can see that the Anunnaki theory proponents' response strategy isn't to directly refute the mainstream view head-on. Instead, they adopt a stance of "You're right, but you're only seeing the surface."

Mainstream Historiography: Focuses more on the function and purpose of the text. They ask: "Why did the ancients write this?" Conclusion: For political legitimacy.
Anunnaki Theory Proponents: Focus more on the content and anomalies of the text. They ask: "Why would the ancients write down these 'outlandish' things?" Conclusion: Because they were recording a history that is incomprehensible to us today, but was real to them.

Simply put, the mainstream view sees the King List as "fiction" created based on political needs; while Anunnaki theory proponents see it as a "memoir" of a real historical period, which was later used and modified as a political tool by descendants.

This is fundamentally a clash of two worldviews and approaches to interpreting evidence.