Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[M. Demetrius]

Well, we couldn't really use only the names of the tribes, as there were hundreds of those, and there is such a small body of knowledge about the familial/tribal differences between, say, the Helvetii and the Lusitanii, the Nervii and Belgae, the Coritani and the Iceni, except from the ancient sources mentioned below, like Julius Caesar, whom some of the forum writers seem inclined to dismiss as irrelevant second-hand knowledge--without providing any first-hand knowledge to replace it with. But I get your point, and I am just asking a clarifying question.

We know some of the material differences between, say, Halstatt and La Tene, but we also see enough similarities to make the analysis that these are artifacts of the same ethnic culture, taken from different centuries of time. Is there not one name that is better than "Celt" to represent these ancient people as a collective? If not, I think we can't talk intelligently about the culture at all without a paragraph of explanation of about whom we are talking. But that's just me. If someone says 1st century Celt, for example, I have a fair idea that they are talking about the general group of Western Europeans who sometimes opposed Roman expansion into their areas.

If there is not a better convenient name, then, how shall we talk about these "X Culture" folks?