A jumble of classifications of Celtic

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Let's see, the book is 384 pages, has contributions from archaeologists, linguists, genetic analysts; it is the result of a multi-disciplinary conference. In short, no, there is a great deal more than can be put across in a discussion. Part of the reason that this is coming up now is that it is only pretty recently that any significant work has been carried out on pre-Roman archaeology in the Iberian peninsula. It is, as you have amply demonstrated, a very contentious area but really ought not be - Celitc as equivalent to Halstatt/La tene is known to be problematic (ie the narrative really doesn't match the evidence)

I really would recommend the book (you can get it from Amazon for around £31, or perhaps try and get a copy from a library)

One of the problems (as I see it) is that the term 'Celtic' is used too widely; it is used as the name for a language, to describe a number of material cultures (from urnfield to Halstatt to La Tene) and as an 'ethnos' (in many senses of the word). Perhaps if we called Halstatt something like Halstatt (and so on), and begin to describe possible movements of people in terms of the groups they actually represent (tribal/confederate entities, rather than sprawling terms like 'Celt' or 'German') and look at the languages these groups spoke in a little more detail.

Maybe then we could build narratives, understand language contacts and change in terms of the evidence - and stop framing our histories in terms of modern concepts of national/'racial' identities, and in terms, instead, of pre-national self-identification.