According to mainstream archaeology and historiography, what was the purpose of compiling the Sumerian King List? Was it purely for historical records or for political propaganda?

Okay, this is an excellent question that gets right to the heart of the Sumerian King List's core nature. I can give you a relatively straightforward explanation.

Simply put, mainstream archaeology and historiography generally agree that the Sumerian King List is first and foremost a piece of political propaganda, and only secondarily a (selective) historical record.

Think of it like an ancient emperor's "official pedigree" or a large corporation's "official corporate history." It appears to be recording the past, but every word was actually crafted to serve the rulers of the "present."

Here's why scholars see it this way, broken down into points:

1. Core Purpose: Legitimizing the "Present" Kingship

The most famous versions of the Sumerian King List (like the "Weld-Blundell Prism") were compiled and revised primarily during the Isin Dynasty. The rulers of this dynasty needed to prove to everyone: "We are the legitimate, sole rulers of the lands of Sumer and Akkad!"

How to prove it? The King List was the perfect tool.

Creating a "Legitimate" Lineage: The King List traces how kingship, descending "from heaven," passed between different cities (from Eridu to Kish, then Uruk, etc.), and finally, "naturally," arrived at Isin. It's like saying: "See? We are the latest link in this sacred, ancient, unbroken chain of rule. Our mandate is divine!"
Excluding Rivals: By emphasizing that kingship resided in only one city at a time, the King List subtly negated the legitimacy of other contemporary, competing city-states (like Larsa). The subtext was: "Those guys are illegitimate upstarts; we are the true line."

2. Ideological Construction: Creating a "Unified" Sumer

In early Sumer, the land was actually fragmented into dozens of independent city-states, constantly warring with each other. There was no long-term, unified central authority.

Yet, the Sumerian King List paints a completely different picture: "Kingship is singular, passing from city to city."

Fictional Unity: It forcibly arranges dynasties that likely existed concurrently and competed with each other into a linear, sequential order of succession. This created the illusion for later generations that "Sumer was a unified whole since ancient times."
Political Ideal: This list is less a record of history and more a promotion of a political ideal – a unified, stable, powerful kingdom ruled by a single legitimate monarch. This was highly appealing both to populations weary of warfare and to monarchs aspiring to grand unification.

3. Emphasizing the "Divinity" and "Antiquity" of Kingship

The King List opens with the astonishing statement: "Kingship descended from heaven."

Divine Right: This directly links the origin of kingship to the gods, telling everyone that the king's power wasn't seized, but divinely granted. Mortals could not question it, much less rebel.
Exaggerated Reigns: The kings listed before the Great Flood are said to have reigned for tens of thousands of years. This is clearly not factual history. The purpose of this exaggeration was to create an aura of "time immemorial," making the very concept of "kingship" appear incredibly ancient, sacred, and unassailable. The gradual shortening of reigns for post-flood monarchs towards more normal lengths also lent the list a semblance of plausibility, increasing its perceived credibility.

Was it completely fabricated? Not entirely.

This is also the most fascinating aspect of the Sumerian King List. While it is political propaganda, it wasn't invented out of thin air.

Includes Real Historical Figures: In its middle and later sections, the list includes many historical figures confirmed by archaeological evidence (such as other inscriptions), like Enmebaragesi, King of Kish.
Fusion of Myth and History: For the ancient Sumerians, the boundary between myth and history wasn't as clear-cut as it is for us today. Those mythical kings reigning for millennia were likely seen as the "primordial" ancestors, integral to their sense of historical identity.

To Summarize

So, you can understand the Sumerian King List like this:

It is not an objective "history book" in the modern sense, but rather a "ideological imprint" or "declaration of legitimacy" serving the politics of its time.

Its primary purpose was to shape perceptions of the "present," consolidate the ruling power, and promote a "unified" political ideal by carefully arranging stories of the past (some true, some false). It was a highly sophisticated political tool, cloaking a naked "political" core in the garb of "history."