, I don't think that the translated Encyclopedia of Ukraine counts as an authority of what is the most conventional name in the English language. And for both of you I provide a few references. Here is a Swedish book using the name: Kaliff, Anders: Gothic Connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC – 500 AD. 2001. Here are a few sites mentioning the culture: Newsletter of the Early Slavic Studies Association Volume 12 Number 2 October 1999, THE CHORA OF OLBIA PONTICA: THE MAIN PROBLEMS1 S.D. KRYZHITSKII, The Making of the Slavs, Valentyn Stetsyuk, Research of Prehistoric Ethnogenetic Processes in Eastern Europe, Book 2, Lviv 2003, Chapter 7. Slavic Peoples, Annales du 14e Congrès de l'Association Internationale pour l'Histoire du Verre  Venezia Milano 1998. As you can see, there is no problem finding this name on the Internet, in this form. Just because it is the conventional name. If you feel uncomfortable with the culture having a Russian form, I am deeply sorry, but that is not what the naming is about. A Wikipedia article is to have the most conventional name in the English language for the simple reason that it is an encyclopedia.