Readings on migrations and migration theory?

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, i may push a little that idea

I agree there!

but i seen that Kulikowski (actually from him i take and develop the view) for example make similar afirmation, that is perfectly possible that Goths originated from local Getae/Dacian-Carpic cultures. I agree, he just say is possible and not that this is 100% sure how things was

The difference between Kulikowski and your ideas is that Kulikowski thinks that the 'ethnogenesis' of the Goths took place in the are where descendants of Dacians and Carpi lived (plus influences from other groups), and I can agree with that.
Your view (as often published on this forum) is that the main influence on this new group (the 'Goths') was from the Dacian part of all these groups. And that is not what Kulikowski thinks and nor do I.

Well, the Polish scholars seem pretty sure that is about actual Dacians living there, not just trade. Especially as they make an interesting mention about remains of some sanctuaries in Poland and even in Jutlanda and their origin can be traced "perhaps more convincingly" to Thraco-Dacian cultures.

If all spots from 1 to, say, 17, indeed show typical Dacian settlement remains they would have a point - but is that what they are actually saying? And even then my point of producing a similar map for 'Romans in Germany' is still be valid: how plentiful are these remains, that we should actually conclude that Dacian tribes actually lived in all the areas on that map?
Besides that 'Thraco-Dacian' is actually pretty vague, isn't it? Such a description covers much more than just 'Dacian'!

Mind you, I have been contacted by people who are going much further than you, and actually say that most legions after the Dacian Wars were Dacians.. So your ideas are not that extreme. :unsure:

So this archeological findings actually match what Agrippa and Ptolemy (who was quite accurate in what he write or draw) said.

Did you look at Agrippa's map? He did not even know there was a Baltic sea - his information was pretty vague. So no points for Agrippa.
Ptolemy - better, but still a loose collection of settlement names, some known but some unknown - and also, he had no idea what the Baltic was either. You can't site Ptolemy for 'detailed knowledge' of that area either I'm afraid.

About Caracalla and Geta i know is my original idea but i found interesting that right after that the Romans start to mention "Goths" right in the area were before was Getae (Dacians). And this without someone can surely prove or somehow identify or trace any significant movement of people there, coming from whatever direction

Well, your point was that the damnatio memoriae of Geta had a direct connection with the appearance of the name 'Goth', and that, hence, the name of Geta and the newly named tribe must have had a connection. That ancient writers could and did confuse the old getae with the new Goths I can well imagine, but that this coincidence proves that the old Getae are the new Goths is unproven in my opinion, at least so far.