When it comes to the anti-Norman theory, it is naturally impossible not to mention the Norman theory, from which, in fact, the first one is repelled. Both of them are considering the history of the Russian state. On the basis of it, various kinds of political speculations are constantly being conducted. One way or another, numerous representatives of various sciences, such as history, linguistics, archeology, geography, etc., constantly face this question.
The beginning of the Norman theory was laid in the 30-60s of the XVIII century by scientists from Germany G.F. Miller and I.G. Bayer, who at that time worked at the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. They published quite a lot of scientific works, some of which were devoted to Norman theory, and for the first time they justified the arguments in favor of the fact that the Varangians created the Old Russian state. At the same time, A.L. worked in Russia. Schletzer, a German historian who studied ancient Russian sources and, in particular, Nestor the Chronicler. Perhaps Schletzer can be called the most ardent admirer of Norman theory.
But the famous scientist M.V. Lomonosov, who wrote the history of Russia on behalf of Empress Elizabeth I, together with another prominent historian V.T. Atishchev resolutely challenged these views. The anti-Norman theory is based precisely on the research of these scientists. They conducted a lot of searches in various sources and archaeological excavations in order to get to the truth. The anti-Norman theory was also the subject of the works of S. Gedeonov, who wrote "Varangians and Russia." Conservative historians D. Ilovaisky and M. Moroshkin also explored this topic and contributed to it their share of undeniable facts. Thus, two directions appeared: Norman and Antinorman (Slavic), which were based on two annals, respectively, of Lavrentievskaya and Ipatievskaya.
Normanists believe that at one time the Norman tribes began to dominate the Eastern Slavs, capturing them as a result of raids either peacefully, and are also convinced that the word "Rus" has a Norman origin. In turn, the anti-Norman theory of arguments leads to the fact that this term was first introduced into speech long before that, in very old times. Their beliefs are built on the "Tale of Bygone Years", which cites facts contrary to Norman theory. There is a record made in 1852, which tells that when Michael reigned in Byzantium, the Russian land already had its name. The Ipatiev and Lavrentiev annals say that all northern Slavic tribes invited the Varangians to reign, and Russia was no exception. But researchers D.S. Likhachev and N. Tikhomirov deny this entry as the original and attribute its appearance in the annals to a later time. They explain this by political motives, they say, in order to contrast Byzantium and Kievan Rus between themselves. To this end, the author of the chronicle indicated the foreign origin of the dynasty of princes.
Of course, the Normans do not always interpret historical facts absolutely adequately, but the anti-Norman theory also has its own too noticeable errors. After all, it is impossible to deny that the Normans were present in Russia and were active, leaving their mark on history. Some even deny the existence of Rurik. This, of course, could be possible, but very unlikely, because his great pedigree is captured in history. Moreover, the dynasty of princes, and then the kings, descending from Igor, had the name "Rurikovich" until the end of the XVI century.
For more than two centuries, the Norman and Antinorman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state has been causing controversy between their adherents. But which of them is right, no one can say for sure. Over the years of their existence, historians have tipped the scales in favor of one, then on the side of the other.