http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitani
http://www.lhhpaleo.religionstatistics.net/LHH%20central.html
"Lusitanian inscription written with Latin characters: OILAM
TREBOPALA INDI PORCOM LAEBO COMMAIAM ICCONA LOIM
INNA OILAM VSSEAM TREBARVNE INDI TAVROM IFADEM[...] REVE TRE[...].
Means "a sheep [is slaughtered] to Trebopala,
and a pig to Laebo, offer to Bright Iccona, a year old sheep to
Trebaruna and a semental bull to Reve Tre[baruna (?)]".
The Lusitanian matches much more with Celtic than Celtiberian
[porcom "pig" = Latin porcum, taurom = Latin taurum "bull",
oila (from *owila) = Latin ovis, ovicula: "sheep". "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Iberia
"The Lusitanian Castros group, in Central Portugal, precursor of the
Lusitani. "
Some quotes from "The Celts," John Davies, 2000, Cassell and
Company, London, United Kingdom. Dr. John Davies is an Honorary
Professor at the University of Wales and a specialist in Celtic
history.
"Thus the core area of the Hallstat D sites has been seen as the area
in which a Celtic koine or lingua franca developed. Such ideas are
highly speculative. They owe much to early twentieth century
thinking, which assumed that an archeological complex is equivalent
of a culture and that a culture is a product of a specific people-
indeed, in the opinion of some writers, a specific race. The concept
of a people carried with it the presumption that they had a specific
language and thus the territory of the Hallstatt archeological
complex became the territory of the speakers of Celtic; in turn the
territory of the speakers of Celtic became the territory of the
Hallstat archeological complex. There was more than a tacit
assumption that all "Celtic' artifacts were produced by Celtic-
speakers, and that all Celtic speakers produced "Celtic" artifacts.
It therefore followed that the Celtic language must have evolved in
the Hallstatt zone-the "Celtic Heartland." Later evidence of its
presence in regions beyond the boundaries of that zone was
interpreted as the result of the invasion of those regions by people
from the "heartland."
Such theories are now viewed with suspicion. There is a
realization that they involve a considerable degree of circular
argument.; archeologist have taken on trust notions from linguists,
as have linguists from archeologist, causing each to build on the
other's myths (p. 26)."
"Invasionism lost favor from the 1950's onwards-the era,
significantly perhaps of rapid desalinization. Instead, emphasis was
placed upon the capacity of indigenous societies to innovate and
develop (p. 26, 28). "
M. Kelkar