Antinorman theory
When it comes to anti-Norman theory, then,naturally, it is impossible not to mention the Norman one, from which, in fact, the first one is repelled. Both of them are considering the question of the history of the emergence of the Russian state. On the basis of it, various kinds of political speculation are constantly being conducted. One way or another, numerous representatives of various sciences are constantly confronted with this question, such as history, linguistics, archeology, geography, etc.
The beginning of the Norman theory was put in the 30-60'sXVIII century, 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 few scientific papers, some of which were devoted to the Norman theory, and they also for the first time substantiated the arguments in favor of the fact that the Old Russian state was created by the Varangians. At the same time, A.L. 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 the 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.Tishishchev, resolutely challenged these views. Antinorman theory is based precisely on the research of these scientists. They conducted many searches in various sources and archaeological excavations in order to get to the bottom of the truth. Antinorman theory was also the theme of the works of S. Gedeonov, who wrote "Varangians and Rus." Conservative historians D. Ilovaysky and M. Moroshkin also explored this topic and contributed to it their share of undeniable facts. Thus, there were two directions: Norman and antinorman (Slavic), which relied on two chronicles, respectively, Lavrentyevskaya and Ipatievskaya.
Normans believe that at one time Normantribes began to dominate the Eastern Slavs, capturing them as a result of raids or by peaceful means, and also convinced that the word "Rus" is of Norman origin. In turn, the anti-Norman theory of arguments leads in favor of the fact that this term was first introduced into speech long before, in very old times. Their beliefs are built on the "Tale of Bygone Years", in which facts contradicting the Norman theory are presented. There is a record made in 1852, which tells that when Mikhail reigned in Byzantium, the Russian land already had its name. The Ipatiev and Laurentian Chronicles say that all the 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 refer to its appearance in the annals to a later time. They explain this by political motives, they say, in order to oppose Byzantium and Kievan Rus. To this end, the author of the chronicle indicated the foreign origin of the dynasty of princes.
Of course, the Normans are not always absolutely adequateinterpret the historical facts, but the antinorman theory also has its own very perceptible errors. After all, it is impossible to deny that the Normans were present in Russia and conducted an active activity that left its mark in history. Some even deny the existence of Rurik. This, of course, could have been possible, but it is very unlikely, because in history its large pedigree is imprinted. Especially since the dynasty of princes, and then of kings, originating from Igor, had the surname "Ryurikovich" until the end of the XVI century.
For more than two centuries the Norman andantinormanskaya theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state cause controversy between their adherents. But one of them is right, no one can say with certainty. For the years of their existence, historians tend to tip the scales in favor of one or the other.
