Apparently, according to this stone they did.
This stone causes a lot of problems for archaeologists because they can correlate so much that is written on it with the approximate times and dates already known.
Gilgamesh himself was said to be a demigod whose father was a Lamu (night spirit) and his mother Ninsun a human beauty. Since good old Gil appears in the Sumerian King List, you really have to wonder just how recently that Humbaba the Terrible placed that awful, eerie inexplicable curse on Enkidu and "all his kind."
The Sumerian King Stone says that conventional history is pure bunkum. There is a lot more there than we are allowed to know by the orthodoxy. The Sumerian and Akkadian ruling classes and their exile seem much more recent in significance than previously thought.
See here that the Sumerian dynasties were followed by the Kings of Babylon and the exiled Babylonians may have constituted the Hyksos who then went into Egypt and completely seized it out of the hands of the largely European population who ruled over it at that time. The Hyksos vanished and appeared under new names just as the Kings of Babylon seemed fond of aliases in their exile. It appears enormously difficult to ever get any specifics on the Hyksos despite their ruling for thousands of years. They are like shadows in history, only visible by looking at the wall behind them with a strong light in your hand. In the Epic of Gilgamesh in the Akkadian translation they are described as "them who wish not to be named" interchangeable with "those in the shadows who go unchallenged."
The best parts of Wikipedia are the parts that the editors are too stupid to know they should carefully censor like they do everything else that is on there. You can learn a lot by seeing the associations where they cannot. Would a genuinely bright person be obsessed with editing Wikipedia entries for most of his adult life? I don't think so. A pseudo-intellectual would love that job, though.