or place-names that are actually not Celtic. These arguments contradict the hypothesis that the p- in PORCOM alone excludes Lusitanian from the Celtic group of pre-Roman languages of Europe and that it can be classed as a Celtic dialect but one that preserved Indo-European (or possibly an already phonetically weakened , written P as an archaism). This is based largely on numerous Celtic personal, deity, and place names. Lusitanian possibly shows from Indo-European in PVMPI, pronominal PVPPID from , and PETRANIOI derived from 'four', but that is a feature found in many Indo-European languages from various branches (including P-Celtic), and by itself, it has no bearing on the question of whether Lusitanian is Celtic. Bua Carballo suggests that pairings on different inscriptions such as Proeneiaeco and Proinei versus Broeneiae, and Lapoena versus Laboena, may cast doubt on the presence of a P sound in Lusitanian. Para-Celtic Some scholars have proposed that it may be a para-Celtic language, which evolved alongside Celtic or formed a dialect continuum or sprachbund with Tartessian and Gallaecian. This is tied to a theory of an Iberian origin for the Celtic languages. It is also possible that the Q-Celtic languages alone, including Goidelic, originated in western Iberia (a theory that was first put forward by Welsh historian Edward Lhuyd in 1707) or shared a common linguistic ancestor with Lusitanian. Secondary evidence for this hypothesis has been found in research by biological scientists, who have identified (firstly) deep-rooted similarities in human DNA found precisely in both the former Lusitania and Ireland and (secondly) the so-called "Lusitanian distribution" of animals and plants unique to western Iberia and Ireland. Both of these phenomena are now generally believed to have resulted from human emigration from Iberia to Ireland during the late Paleolithic or early Mesolithic eras. Non-Celtic In general, philologists consider Lusitanian an Indo-European language of a western language-group classification but not Celtic. Villar and Pedrero (2001) connect Lusitanian with ancient Ligurian. They base their findings on parallels in the names of deities and some lexical items (e.g., the similarity of Umbrian gomia and Lusitanian comaiam), and some grammatical elements. However, this raises more questions about the relation of the Lusitanian language with Celtic because ancient Ligurian is considered Celtic by some. Krzysztof (1999) is highly critical of the name-correspondences of Lusitanian and Celtic by Anderson (1985) and Untermann (1987), describing them as "unproductive" and agrees with Karl Horst Schmidt