I recently had my Ancestry.com / Ancestry.co.uk results updated in the beta test - for myself and for my family. The new results make AncestryDNA my most accurate DNA test so far. Here are the screenshots for the latest results for my family kits:
My results before the Update:
Following the latest 2018 update:
My sibling's new results:
I've updated my spreadsheet comparing different results for myself, from different vendors in order to reflect how well that the new Ancestry test is now working for myself and my family, compared to 23andme etal;
The new K11 Ancients Common and Rarer Alleles tests are being run by Dilawer Khan, creator of the Gedrosia stable of admixture calculators available on GEDMatch.com, and of the EurasianDNA.com website. This new test uses a new set of principles, based on using ADMIXTURE to produce more reliable ancient results. I commissioned him to run my own 23andMe file through the tests, to produce the following results and PCA's/
PCA for Common Alleles (my position "Norfolk"):
PCA for Rarer Alleles (my position "Norfolk"):
The K11 Ancients common Alleles results should reflect the older ancestry most accurately. In summary, that gave me:
48.6% Neolithic Farmer
26.5% Copper Age Steppe Pastoralist
24.9% Western Hunter-Gatherer
Thank you Dilawer.
How have other tests seen similar admixture?
I previously commissioned David Wesolowski (Eurogenes stable on GEDMatch and of Eurogenes Blog) to run my raw file through his K7 Basal-rich test. He produced the following results:
14% Ancient North Eurasian.
These are two very different tests, of admixture between different sets of population, of different time periods. What I do find interesting is the 14% percentage of ANE (Ancient north Eurasian) relates quite favourably to what I understand it's admixture percentage is to Yamna or Steppe pastoralist. Dilawer gives me 26.5% Steppe. I have previously heard that the Yamna were circa 50% ANE, and the remainder of mixture of other Western Eurasian Hunter-Gatherer groups, including Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers.
The K11 Ancients test does suggest that I have a surprisingly high amount of ancestry from the Neolithic Farmers, that were in Europe previous to the arrival of the Steppe migrants around 4,900 years ago. This is actually consistent with my other Ancient admixture test results. The K7 Basal-rich test for example, had given me 28.8% Basal. The Basal Eurasians are a hypo-theoretical "ghost" population that was among the founding admixture of the Neolithic Farmers, in a similar way that the ANE were among the founding admixture of the Steppe Pastoralists. Again then, the two tests do tally reasonably well in determining where my personal percentages of ancient DNA originate.
Why do I have so high percentages of Neolithic Farmer and Basal Eurasian I do not know. My DNA flavour is a slight extreme, and atypical even for an English person, and more so for a Briton. My recorded genealogy is all SE English, mainly East Anglian. I would love to see the results of other East Anglians, as I suspect to them, that I am not such an extreme. However, even if this was the case, it doesn't explain why modern East Anglians would have lower Steppe, and more Neolithic than either West British, Scandinavians, or even ancient DNA from Anglo-Saxons. Higher percentages of Neolithic ancestry today are usually found to the South, peaking in Sardinia, then Iberia. A favoured explanation is that the SE English could have had a lot of input from the South, via the French during Norman and Medieval periods. I'm not totally convinced - yet.
A third new ancient admixture test that I might use here in the MDLP Project Modern K11. On GEDMatch Oracle, it proposes a number of genetic distances to ancient DNA samples:
If I look at four population distances, then based on the samples available in the test, I'm looking pretty European Bell Beaker, with Corded Ware and Yamna appearing. My closest single population in the samples is a surprising British Celtic! More samples from the European Neolithic might turn those results around.
British archaeologists have long been aware of a late prehistoric artifact culture found across the British Isles, and across large areas of Western Europe. It bridged the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods around 4,400 to 3,800 years ago. It was characterised by the use of fine bell-shaped beaker pots, usually red ceramic fabric, heavily decorated with simple motifs. These motifs were characteristically impressed with a fine toothed comb or dentated spatula. Many Bell beaker burial rituals have been excavated and studied. The inhumed body would usually be crouched on the side, roughly on a north to south alignment. A bell beaker would often be stood near to the body, at the feet, or near the head. Other grave goods often included barbed and tanged flint arrowheads, flint flakes and blades, antler picks, sometimes one or two more beakers, amber beads, copper awls, and gold earrings / hair rings. 64% of British Beaker burials were flat graves, but sometimes a barrow or cist would be erected above it (Beaker Pottery of Great Britain & Ireland. DL Clarke. CUP 1970).
Above, a flint barbed & tanged arrowhead of the Beaker Culture, that I found and recorded during a surface collection survey some years ago.
Archaeologists studying the artifact culture in Britain, compared the British finds to those on the Continent in order to try to find an origin for these people. They suggested either Brittany in North West France, or the Lower Rhine Valley, in the Netherlands and Northern Germany. Some alternatively promoted Iberia as the origin.
Then British Archaeology entered an intellectual phase where it became fashionable to dismiss migration or invasions of people, in favour of cultural exchange. Pots not People. Rather like today, we British wear denim, t-shirts, listen to R&B, and drink coke. However, we have not been displaced by North Americans - we just absorbed the artifacts of another culture. From the 1970s on, many late prehistoric migrations were dismissed by British archaeologists as cultural exchanges rather than representing population displacement.
2. The New Population Genetics and the Steppe Pastoralists.
A new field of study has been gathering pace with the arrival of the 21st Century, that uses genetic evidence, to explore past migrations, movements, admixtures, and origins of peoples. The earliest pioneers used blood types, then mitochondrial DNA mutations, followed by STR of Y-DNA. Some of the early conclusions supported the new orthodoxy of British Archaeology. Stephen Oppenheimer's infamous publication "The Origins of the British" championed that there had been little change in British populations since the Ice Age. They were to be proven wrong. Early conclusions, based on little evidence, misunderstandings that were later corrected with more data, seriously damaged the reputation of population genetics in British prehistoric studies.
The most common Y-DNA haplogroup of Western Europe, particularly of Ireland and Britain was R1b. Early mistakes gave this male haplogroup an Ice Age origin of the Basque Region in Southwest Europe. As more data gathered, and debate developed, it became apparent that the origin was not the Basque region, but the Pontic and Caspian Steppes of Eurasia! It became associated with an archaeological culture in Southern Russia called the Yamna. The R1b and R1a haplogroups appeared to have spilled off the Steppes into Europe during the Copper Age during a significant migration event around 4,900 - 4,600 years ago. In Eastern and Central Europe, this migration of pastoralists appears to be responsible for the fused artifact culture known as the Corded Ware (again, after a prehistoric pottery style).
A few lectures on Youtube to watch:
Havard lecture by David Reich 2015.
CARTA lecture by Johannes Krause 2016
That brings us up to date. In summary, population geneticists have discovered a movement of people, not just pots, from the Steppes into Europe. Modern Europeans descend from an admixture of three major founder populations: 1) the Western Eurasian hunter-gatherers, then a layer of 2) Early Neolithic farmers (that originated in Anatolia and the Middle East), and finally, 3) the Steppe Pastoralists. The actual mix varies not only from person to person, but also regionally across Europe.
So how does the Bell Beaker Culture of Britain and Western Europe fit into all of this? The strong assumption over the past couple of years was that the diffusion of R1b Y-DNA haplogroups occurred then, so therefore, it was a simple extension of this westward drift across Europe that originated on the Pontic and Caspian Steppes. It first spawned the Corded Ware Culture in Central Europe, but then when it met Western Europe, spawned the Bell Beaker Culture. However, until now, this hypothesis hadn't been tested.
The Beaker phenomenon and genetic transformation of Northwest Europe 2017
Has now examined some of these questions, through the examination of an unprecedented scale of ancient DNA sampling. The link to their published document (which is still awaiting peer review) is at the top of this post, and I'd invite others to read it for themselves. An article covering the document can also be read on the Scientific American. However, I personally with my layman head take five suggestions from the study.
They found that the DNA of human remains on Continental Europe did not suggest one cohesive or homogeneous population. There was in this case, evidence of cultural diffusion. Different peoples were taking on the Bell Beaker artifact assemblage in Western Europe. Pots rather more than people. This was a great surprise, as we still know from the earlier study, that much of our DNA and Y-DNA in particular, originated around 400 years earlier from the Eurasian Steppes. However, although the Central European Corded Ware Culture does still appear to have been a response to that great influx of new people from the Steppes, the picture with the Western European Bell Beaker is more complex.
An exception was Britain. Here, the remains associated with Bell Beaker Culture were all one population, and they were very different to the earlier Neolithic population of Britain. It appears to have been a case of population displacement. They suggest at least 90% displacement! It means that very few or none of our Neolithic ancestors built the amazing monuments of Neolithic Britain. They were built by earlier peoples, that our ancestors displaced.
They confirm a Lower Rhine origin as most likely for the British Beaker People. The ancient DNA that most closely matched British Beaker DNA, came from Beaker human remains in the Netherlands and Northern Germany. This correlates nicely with the 1970 archaeological study mentioned above.
It's confirmed. Previous to their entry into the British Isles, there is no evidence of any Steppe ancestry, no Steppe autosomal DNA, no Steppe Y haplogroups such as R1b-L21 here. (Nor any mtDNA haplogroup H6a1). The Beaker people from the Lower Rhine, brought the initial layers of this DNA to Britain. The founder population were admixed, but with significant percentages of Steppe ancestry, particularly on Y lines.
The previous Neolithic Farmer population were mainly Y haplogroup I2, and appear to have descended mainly from populations in the South, from Iberia, rather than from the Danube, although before that from Anatolia. The modern population that is closest to them today are Sardinians.
Also as a layman, I guess that this suggests that most, or even any "Neolithic Farmer" DNA suggested by our ancient ancestry calculators, was most likely picked up elsewhere than Britain, and brought here by later migrants (descended through that mixture of cultural diffusion and admixture), rather than directly from the British Neolithic population.
I also notice a correlation with an Irish study last year ("Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland and
establishment of the insular Atlantic genome" Cassidy etal. Queens University Belfast 2016), that again, suggested major displacement of earlier peoples in Ireland, at the end of the Neolithic, by a population with largely Steppes origins.
Here I'm considering the third option to my enigma. My known ancestry is 100% English. However, autosomal DNA tests for Ancestry, by commercial companies, and by third party analysis, suggest that I have a mixture of European ancestries, including varying percentages of Southern European. I'm trying to best explain this phenomena. In previous posts, I considered 1) that my paper record is incomplete, or biologically incorrect. 2) that something ancient is picked up in analysis of present day English testers - that maybe reflect shared algorithms with ancient admixture, perhaps prehistoric, or Roman.
Now in this post, I consider the third option. That commercial DNA companies exaggerate their claims to be able to differentiate to any successful degree, between different regions of Europe in my ancestry. If this is indeed the case, it has significant repercussions for testers for example, in the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. If they have a poor paper trail, and poorly known ancestry, maybe it's all too easy for them to regard such DNA tests for ancestry, as indisputable and accurate truths.
Commercial DNA companies for Ancestry, are under pressure to supply to market demands. Their markets have been dominated particularly by USA customers. Some of them seasoned genealogists with good quality paper trails. Others, attracted by the easy option to know their ancestry before the, as 23andMe puts it, the Age of Migration before the past few centuries. Instead of spending a lifetime chasing documents, they can simply send a DNA sample to a company, and know their roots. People trust the science of DNA testing for ancestry. That is the demand that commercial companies can cater for.
But what if their abilities to accurately detect ancestry from Autosomal DNA is exaggerated?
Lack of agreement between analysis.
As one evidence. Test autosomal DNA with three different companies, and you will receive three different results. That is well known in genetic genealogy circles. Some apologists excuse it away by pointing to the different companies claims, to be focusing on different periods. 23andMe say that they zoom in on 500 years ago, by rejecting short chains. Is it really, really possible yet, to be able to zoom in on one particular period? I'm not convinced. Is it even possible to securely locate all ancestry from the past 500 years? I'd expect genetic recombination to wash away an awful lot of ancestral DNA long before that. The truth is that beyond our great great grandparent's generation, there is less and less chance of us carrying any surviving DNA from any one particular ancestor! Especially from the autosomal DNA passed down on your father's side. You might have a Balkan g.g.g.g grandfather, but chances are, there will be no evidence of their existence remaining in your autosomes. His DNA, and all that belonged to his Balkan ancestry, will be lucky to survive the following 250 years, never mind 500 years. My Y-DNA has strong evidence that I had an Asian ancestor on my paternal line, arrive in Southern England between 1,800 and 500 years ago. However, nothing remains in my autosomal DNA analysis that suggests Asia. Washed away.
Getting back to those three companies giving three different ancestries. My South European percentages have varied from 2% (with a hint at Iberia), to 19% (with a hint at Balkans), to FT-DNA's claim of 32%! Eurogenes K13 hints at Iberia in it's admixture programs on GEDmatch.
One more thing. Autosomal DNA tests for ancestry do not use ancient DNA references. Not yet anyway. They instead use present-day references, often from their own customer client bases, based on what ancestry they claim. This is not necessarily the DNA that existed in past populations. Populations and genes shuffle, genetic drift forms. I recently read a report that FT-DNA Y data for NW Europe heavily biases to Irish ancestry. Therefore, references from Americans of Irish and / or British descent, will bias to the West. The quality of a reference is critical.
Is it all Bunk?
Am I saying that autosomal DNA testing for Ancestry is all a waste of time? Actually no, not yet. The tests DO find me to be pretty much 100% European. That is a success. Some tests even find me with a degree of confidence, to be NW European. That is awesome. However, beyond such regional level, should we be trusting such tests to be providing concrete results, infallible "truths" with a high degree of accuracy? Shouldn't we be cautious, and regard such speculations as just that - speculations, to be assessed by other forms of evidence? Some of my ancestors might have lived in Southern Europe. Maybe Option 1 was correct - one of my Norfolk ancestors brought a Portuguese wife home from the Peninsular Wars. Perhaps. Maybe Option 2 was correct - the patterns that DNA companies pick up as Southern European, are ancient, related to Neolithic, Iron Age, or Roman admixture from the South, or sharing ancient ancestry with Southern Europeans. Maybe.
I'm not at all disenchanted with DNA testing for ancestry though. I've commissioned five so far this year, including three autosomal DNA tests. This leads me to my most recent commission. Perhaps this one will convince me more. It's a very new test. I'll post on that next.
This photo of A Capela dos Ossos (the bone chapel) in Évora, Portugal. Taken by myself.
First, a recap
I'm English by ethnicity, birth, upbringing, known family history, and by record. That record, I've researched on and off for more than 25 years, primarily in record offices, but in more recent years also online. On my personal database I presently have 207 direct ancestors recorded. All lived in Southern England, with the majority in East Anglia. All appear to have English surnames. All recorded religious denominations, English. The majority were rural working class. I have a typical English ethnicity and phenotype. My recorded genealogy stretches back at the furthest to the 1680's.
I'd expect some admixture in there. I know from my Y-DNA that I have Asian admixture from between 500 and 1,800 years ago on my paternal lineage. Surely some Hugeonauts, Strangers, Romany, or others at some point. However, a rare and single event on one line of ancestry doesn't hang around very long in autosomal DNA. It can be washed out very quickly by genetic recombination - as my Asian, as detected by my Y-DNA, has been. You should only really see significant traces of admixture, when it is either recent (within the past few hundred years at most), or entered on multiple lines of ancestry.
Therefore, I'd have expected a commercial Autosomal DNA test for ancestry to come fairly close to 100% for British, or even English. But instead, so far, I've received:
From 23andMe Ancestry Composition in Speculative mode, before any phasing with mother alone:
32% British & Irish
27% French & German
29% Broadly NW European
2% Broadly Southern European (including 0.5% Iberian)
and after phasing with one parent:
37% British & Irish (23% from father, 14% from mother)
22% French & German (12% from father, 10% from mother)
1% Scandinavian (from mother alone)
36% Broadly NW European (23% from father, 13% from mother)
2% Broadly Southern European (1% from father, 1% from mother)
From FTDNA Family Finder My Origins, I recently received:
36% British Isles
32% Southern European
6% Eastern Europe
Wegene using my 23andMe raw data gives me:
DNA.land using my 23andMe raw data gives me:
77% Northwest European
19% South European broken into 13% Balkan and 6% Central/South European
1% ambiguous West Eurasian.
GEDmatch Eurogenes K13 on Oracle using my FT-DNA raw data gives me as my nearest Genetic Distance:
Southeast English 3.75 GD
On Oracle 4 I get as my nearest single population Genetic Distance:
Southeast English 4.28 GD
Best three way on K13 Oracle 4 mix is:
50% Southeast_English +25% Spanish_Valencia +25% Swedish @ 1.86 GD
Eurogenes K13 does often suggest Iberian references for admixtures on my results further down the proposal list. Still, thumbs up for Eurogenes K13! It gets me as Southeast English correctly!
So... 23andMe claims that I have 2% Southern European and that it comes from both parents, although before phasing, it hinted at Iberian. FT-DNA claims that I have a whopping 32% Southern European! DNA.land claims that I'm 19% South European, but Balkan with some Italian, rather than Iberian! Eurogenes K13 Oracle 4 suggests that if I do have admixture, that it most likely includes Iberian. My family tree has no evidence of any Southern European people, names, or any Catholicism, etc. Confusing or what?
Above photo taken by myself of the Ring of Brodgar, Orkney
I've modified this from a post that I made on a DNA forum, in response to people discussing out-dated origin stories, in response to a thread looking at ancestral composition for the English. There is so much misinformation out there, and few people actually try to look at the latest evidences.
It starts by looking at the key points of a recent Irish study.
Cassidy, Martiniano, Murphy etal Study
of Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland
Ancient DNA from earlier Neolithic
farmers suggests an origin from the Near East.
Later DNA from Bronze Age suggests
a new population had arrived and dominated, with origins from the
Eurasian Steppes, including the present day predominance of Y
haplogroup R1b, lactose tolerance, and blue eyes. This displacement
event appears to have occurred throughout much of Western Europe.
The founder population on the Steppes has been linked to the
archaeological population known as the Yamna or Yamnaya.
A background to the Yamna hypothesis to
help people understand what the above study supported:
The Yamnaya were a population that
existed across the Pontic and Caspian Steppes from what is now
Ukraine, to Kazakhistan. They themselves were an admixed population,
with ancestry from various different groups of Eurasian
hunter-gatherers, and from the ANE (Ancient North Eurasian). They
carried a number of successful adaptations, including the use of the
wheel, improved selective breeding of horses for both riding and
haulage, lactose tolerance, use of horse drawn wheeled carts, and a
very successful pastoral based economy revolving around the
herding of a number of species of livestock.
They are strongly figured to have
carried an Indo-European language into Europe and elsewhere (South
and Western Asia). That Indo-European language being the ancestor of
the vast majority of modern European languages today. They may have
also carried many of the most common haplogroups of modern Europeans,
including Y hg R1a, R1b, and some mt hg H types among others.
There is a hypothesis that the earlier
peoples of Europe, the Early Neolithic farmers, who had largely
descended from early farmers in the Levant / Anatolia, had been
suppressed by a number of possible environmental and climatic events.
This might have paved the way for such a successful displacement of
As the descendants of the Yamna swept
westwards into Europe during the Copper Age, so they spawned a series
of new archaeological cultures including the Corded Ware of Eastern
and Central Europe, and the Bell Beaker culture of Western Europe.
The Bell Beaker culture spread from
Central Europe to the Western Atlantic Seaboard, and from Portugal up
to Scotland. Classic artifacts include archer burials in round
barrows, the bell beaker ware pottery, round scrapers, and barbed and
tanged arrowheads. It was the dominant culture of Early Bronze Age
One suggestion is that it spawned the
later Iron Age Celtic cultures, including the classic Western
Atlantic Seaboard Celtic Culture. This culture may have simply
evolved locally and through trade links along that seaboard.
The Irish study above supports the
Yamnaya hypothesis. It supports displacement during the Early Bronze
Age, and that the present day, fairly homogeneous population of
Ireland, largely descends from Copper Age Eurasian Steppe
Okay, so what if we apply that also to
the late prehistoric British populations? Scottish and West British
today appear to have a close genetic distance to the Irish. How
about the lowland SE British? It might be the case, that they had
fresh admixture, exchanged with the Continent, and particularly with
the expanding Germanic cultures. These events could have occurred
even during late prehistory.
Now People of the British Isles (POBI)
This genetic study looked at the
British Isles including Northern Ireland, but excluding the Republic
of Ireland. It tested a large sample group of present day British
with known local ancestry.
Orkney had the most distinctive
population, with a known high percentage of Norse ancestry.
The Welsh were distinct from the
English. However, they were the most diverse group, with a clear
division between the North Welsh and South Welsh. Cornwall was also
distinctive from English.
Northern Ireland clusters with
There was no homogeneous shared
British “Celtic” population. The Scottish, North Welsh, South
Welsh, and Cornish being quite distinct from each other.
The South-East British (most of
the English) were surprisingly homogeneous, although the boundaries
of the old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms could still be distinguished.
The Continental Anglo-Saxon
contributiion to present day English people appeared to be circa 10%
to 40%. This contradicts Bede's claims of a genocide. The English
descend more from earlier British populations than they do from
Although the Norwegian Viking
contribution to Orkney was distinctive, the Danish contribution to
Eastern England could not be detected. This may be because of the
close genetic distance between Danish Viking and some earlier Anglo
Saxon settlers makes it impossible to see.
Although there was no “Celtic
Fringe”, the Welsh appear to be closest to the late prehistoric
Any Iberian contribution appears
to be tiny and insignificant.
There appeared to be a
contribution in Southern Britain, particularly in Cornwall, from a
population shared today by the North French. This contribution
appears to have occurred during late prehistory and is historically
Okay, so that is suggesting a diversity
across the British Isles that extends into Prehistory. A key finding
to this thread is that it found the English to be an admixed
population, with earlier British ancestry dominating Anglo Saxon
ancestry from the Continent.
Finally, I think it is worthwhile
bringing up another recent study:
Iron Age and Anglo Saxon Genomes from
Eastern England. Schiffels, Haak, etal. 2015.
This qualitative study focused on
ancient DNA from a number of Iron Age and Anglo Saxon cemeteries in
the Cambridge area of SE England, referenced against modern
The East English derive 38% of
their ancestry from Anglo-Saxon immigrants
The closest genetic distances on
the Continent between the Anglo Saxon settlers and present day
Europeans was to the Dutch and Danish.
They found evidence of admixture
and intermarrying. Individuals with both Iron Age British, and
Anglo Saxon ancestry.
People of Iron Age British
ancestry were adopting and embracing Anglo-Saxon culture and grave
The richest graves were of local
Iron Age British ancestry (with Anglo Saxon cultural artifacts). The
poorest graves were recent Anglo-Saxon arrivals.
We have to be careful about who we
regard as the Celts. A Celtic culture did exist, but it wasn’t
necessarily brought to the British Isles and Ireland by an Iron Age
people. It may have developed on the Western Atlantic Seaboard from
earlier Bronze Age peoples.
Those Bronze Age peoples,
predominantly descended, from Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists, that had
swept across Europe, bringing innovations. They are the oldest
peoples of Ireland and the British Isles, but they did not form a
homogeneous Celtic Fringe. There must be more to it.
The Anglo-Saxon event in SE
Britain was a major and significant migration. However, it was not
the genocide of Bede's claims. Hengist and Horsa were clearly
mythological origin characters akin to Romulus and Remus.
The modern day English are an
admixed population. They have a foot both in earlier British
ancestry, and in Anglo-Saxon / North Sea migration.
Early examinations of the Chandler / Brooker Southern English L-M20 Y haplogroup samples, seem to be suggesting that they share a common ancestor quite recently, perhaps between 300 and 600 years ago. That might mean that a Y ancestor carried the haplogroup into England, perhaps between the 13th and 17th centuries AD.
Where did that Y-DNA come from? It could have been carried directly by one Y ancestor from a homeland, or it could have transported to England gradually over many generations, from a homeland in Western Asia.
An early match has been forwarded by Caspian, forum user at Anthropogenica. It is a 111 STR marker, from Birjand / Southern Khorasan, in Eastern Iran.
Could this be the home of our Brooker family Y ancestors? That is to say, if I was to trace my father, back to his father, to his father - and to continue along this route, might I eventually find my ancestors on this paternal line, in Eastern Iran? It's an early possibility. More data, more tests, might eventually give me a better answer.
Early analysis by Gareth Henson, informally suggests a tmrca (time since most recent common ancestor) between myself and the guy in Eastern Iran, of circa 3,000 years ago, or if you prefer, 1000 BC. That would mean that we shared a common lineage until around the time of the Later Bronze Age in British terms. Our common Y ancestor most likely lived nearer to his home in Western Asia than to mine in North West Europe.
That isn't long ago. It might suggest that our most recent common ancestor lived in Western Asia around about the time of a series of tensions and conflicts between Greeks and Persians. On the other hand, Anthropogenica user Anabasis, using the Clan McDonald TMRCA Calculator, suggests a more recent date, around 1,800 to 1,500 years ago. That in his words puts it into a context of "In that times Roman - Sasanian wars happened along Eastern Anatolia. Greek- Persian wars were 1 millennium earlier.". However, he warns, that STR data is not a trustworthy indicator of a TMRCA.
What I love though, is that it stirs the imagination. Whether 1,500 years ago, or 3,000 years ago - I, an East Anglian, had a paternal ancestor somewhere most likely, between Eastern Anatolia, and Afghanistan.