Interesting stuff, cmacq. I have to say I'm not very familiar with the history of American archaeological academia, so I haven't run across the conflicts of different "theories" of scholarship yet. I'm only a senior undergraduate, though, so I'm sure I'll encounter plenty of theoretical stuff in graduate school. Unfortunately, since I'm not familiar with them, I can't really comment or respond to most of what you said about them.

I do agree that migrations, in and out of Scandinavia, certainly took place. I think the issue at hand (in Goffart's article, at least) is whether or not the Goths were one of them. Naturally, Jordanes claims that they were, but Jordanes is a Byzantinized Goth writing with the agenda of glorifying the reconquests of Justinian, including through such means as building up the "enemy" to make the victories all the greater. I don't know, however, whether or not Scandinavian origin was considered some keyword for 6th Century Romans that somehow conveyed power and nobility--if it wasn't (or if the Romans simply didn't care), then there obviously would be no other reason for Jordanes to include this other than because he believed it to be the case.

In any case, it's interesting to get a little insight into what's going on "behind the scenes" of the secondary sources I read for my thesis. Even if I don't know what most of the labels mean. Thanks for the "rant".

Cheers.