Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

[JonikW]

Rodoorn,

I agree that Gudme was the center of Germanic culture in the Roman times. But the transmission of Germanic language and culture together with migration of R1b-U106 Northwards, into the area of the Battle Axe-descended Nordic culture in Scandinavia, has started way earlier than that. Around 6th century BC, about 2600 years ago. The dominant culture in Europe at that time was the Greek culture.

Imho populations and population movements are in iron age not strictly one -Y-Dna- track minded....

With regard to R1b U106- taken to the core- lines like Z304 have a more NW Block kind of spread. Z18 is more Scandic.  Z18 came to Friesland in EMA with the migration ages. The (definite) Germanization of the NW Block was in EMA.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1221068102

Happy Easter to all who celebrate this day. :-)

Rodoorn, I like your wording on the definite Germanisation of the NW Block and fully agree with it.

I first read about the NW Block theory in Lendering and Bosman’s “Edge of Empire,” a book I highly recommend, especially for its extensive quotations from primary sources and multiple maps. Worth checking out for anyone who doesn't know it.

I was sceptical when I first encountered the theory in those pages, but I've warmed to it over the years and so it came as no surprise to me that this paper backs it up. 

To my mind the question of when the Germanisation of the NW Block occurred is one of the big remaining issues that I hope to see resolved. The Migration Period people of the area were undoubtedly Germanic but did the Germanisation occur at an unknown earlier time?

I haven't looked at any clues in McColl et al beyond noting the I1 Roman IA sample from the Hogebeintum terp site. This is now the oldest I-M253 we have from the Netherlands (Z141 > CTS6739). 

I continue to think the Roman primary sources demonstrate that the area had been Germanised by the start of the first millennium but I also wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. (You'll remember what I've posted in the past so I won't do it again). 

Purely theoretically, if the Germanisation took place before the Migration Period, what would be your best case for the timeframe: decades before or centuries? I'm also mindful of Lendering and Bosman's words that "the situation is possibly even more complex than adherents of the Northwest Block hypothesis think."

ADD: hyperlinks to book description and SNP.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn,

I agree that Gudme was the center of Germanic culture in the Roman times. But the transmission of Germanic language and culture together with migration of R1b-U106 Northwards, into the area of the Battle Axe-descended Nordic culture in Scandinavia, has started way earlier than that. Around 6th century BC, about 2600 years ago. The dominant culture in Europe at that time was the Greek culture.

Imho populations and population movements are in iron age not strictly one -Y-Dna- track minded....

With regard to R1b U106- taken to the core- lines like Z304 have a more NW Block kind of spread. Z18 is more Scandic.  Z18 came to Friesland in EMA with the migration ages. The (definite) Germanization of the NW Block was in EMA.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1221068102

Happy Easter to all who celebrate this day. :-)

Rodoorn, I like your wording on the definite Germanisation of the NW Block and fully agree with it.

I first read about the NW Block theory in Lendering and Bosman’s “Edge of Empire,” a book I highly recommend, especially for its extensive quotations from primary sources and multiple maps. Worth checking out for anyone who doesn't know it.

I was sceptical when I first encountered the theory in those pages, but I've warmed to it over the years and so it came as no surprise to me that this paper backs it up. 

To my mind the question of when the Germanisation of the NW Block occurred is one of the big remaining issues that I hope to see resolved. The Migration Period people of the area were undoubtedly Germanic but did the Germanisation occur at an unknown earlier time?

I haven't looked at any clues in McColl et al beyond noting the I1 Roman IA sample from the Hogebeintum terp site. This is now the oldest I-M253 we have from the Netherlands (Z141 > CTS6739). 

I continue to think the Roman primary sources demonstrate that the area had been Germanised by the start of the first millennium but I also wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. (You'll remember what I've posted in the past so I won't do it again). 

Purely theoretically, if the Germanisation took place before the Migration Period, what would be your best case for the timeframe: decades before or centuries? I'm also mindful of Lendering and Bosman's words that "the situation is possibly even more complex than adherents of the Northwest Block hypothesis think."

ADD: hyperlinks to book description and SNP.

happy Easter too Jonik and all other members.....

The definite was in parentheses and that's no coincidence. As you can see on the map about Jastorf even in the greatest extension it came to an area along the upper Weser, nothing between Rhine and Weser.

I don't know what they spoke, no evidence, nevertheless Kuhn (1962), Kuzmenko (2011) and Schrijver (2017) are clear, nothing Germanic but something in the "Celto-Italic range".

Mark also the map of Lao (2013), in which the Anglo-Saxon cluster (yellow) is differentiated from the Frankish one (in pink). The Franks were a bunch of some Frisii, Chauci, Chamavi, Bructeri and some other tribes from the NW Germany part. They were according to latest theories a resistance movement against incoming Anglo-Saxons.

Mark this also has lead to some kind of differentiation in phenotype between the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish parts.  And as such language is of course not dna. Nevertheless the Anglo-Saxon influx was so dominating in the NE part of the Netherlands that they without any doubt brought in a form of NW Germanic that evolved into old Frisian and old Saxon.

I guess it's no coincidence that in the tree of Seelbold/Hines (2013) Frankish is not mentioned.....So I see the Saxons/ Frisians and the Franks not as one of the same kind.....and initial there was a great animosity.

This romanticized but still this is representative for the animosity:

[Capitalis]

Sample VK145, buried in Oxfordshire, England during the Viking Age, is highlighted with a red circle. This sample plots alongside modern Sweden, and not towards the eastern edge of modern Poland (i.e. the Baltics). This is clearly a Northwest European sample. Or so you would think.



Reading through Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages for the second time, on pp. 87-88 of Supplementary Notes 2-7, I noticed that sample VK145 has been identified by McColl et al. as belonging to their Baltic IBD cluster.

I looked up samples VK143, VK145 and VK263 in Supplementary Table 2: Pairwise IBD sharing in Ringbauer et al.'s Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA (2023).



We can see IBD links between samples VK143 and VK145 and Viking Age samples from Estonia (i.e. the Baltics). But VK143 and VK145's overall autosomal profile is clearly Northwest European, as per PCA.

[Capitalis]

^^ The problem, or rather the source of our difficulties of understanding (I say "our" out of prudence and modesty, I doubt in fact that it is only ours), is not only, perhaps not even essentially, the use of IBDs in itself, but the quantification which is made by McColl in the immediate line of Allentoft. This quantification, which uses ADMIXTURE in a very specific manner in supervised mode, is described in detail by Allentoft in the notes of his major 2022 study. My trouble comes from the fact that I see nothing in this method which can protect it from the phenomena of concentration of IBDs so natural to populations having suffered bottlenecks or isolates phenomena. Basically, what would happen to a group with a profile resembling my own case? I've said this a bunch of times before, but I'll repeat it in haste. I have a Finnish great-great-grandmother, everything else is a North-West European cocktail. I look at MyHeritage, which has the advantage of using a classic method (as far as I know) for their ethnic compositions, and a count of shared IBDs on imputed genomes for the count of genetic matches. It's probably not as refined as the Allentoft method, but it's pretty similar. As for my ethnic breakdown, look at my signature: 4% Finnish and around ten% Baltic, I have nothing to complain about, it's not that bad. Now look at the list of my genetic matches:
Etats-Unis d'Amérique
640
Finlande
545
Suède
177
France
172
...
If we refined this count it would be worse. For example, out of my 10 Spanish matches, 2 are half Finnish, and all the matches I have in common with them are from Finland. It's basically the same thing for all my Scandinavian and Russian matches. In short, my “Finnish” IBDs drown out everything. I am well aware that Finland is a special case, noticed for a long time. But what guarantees us that the problem, paroxysmal in my case, does not pollute in a more subtle way the quantifications made by the authors? I don't know, and really wish the authors thought about protecting themselves from this in some way.

A number of years ago at Anthrogenica, I pointed out a flaw in the MyHeritage DNA matching process. This flaw hasn't been fixed. Perhaps it will be of interest here.

My father was assigned the Western Ukraine, Moldova and Northeastern Romania genetic group at 'low confidence' level, but it intrigued me to explore further. At the time, MyHeritage allowed users to filter their DNA matches by genetic group, but this seems to have been removed now (possibly due to the 23andMe data breach?).



My father had one DNA match who had also been assigned the Western Ukraine... genetic group, and this gentleman was half English, half Moldovan. He was born and lives in Canada.

This was of interest, as Canada is the top location for people assigned to the Western Ukraine... genetic group.



Luckily, my father had triangulated IBD matches with this gentleman and two other MyHeritage users, one of whom was this gentleman's uncle. The uncle had a well-researched family tree, showing he had lots of ancestry from West Oxfordshire and none from Moldova. By coincidence (!), my father has lots of ancestry from neighbouring Gloucestershire.



So I think it is obvious what has occurred here; a man with Moldovan and English ancestry has been placed correctly in the Western Ukraine, Moldova and Northeastern Romania genetic group, and one of his English IBD matches (my father) has been dragged along for the ride, despite having no Western Ukraine... ancestry.

This is obviously not a perfect parallel to the VK145 issue, but does highlight the perils of IBD assignments.

:-)

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn,

I agree that Gudme was the center of Germanic culture in the Roman times. But the transmission of Germanic language and culture together with migration of R1b-U106 Northwards, into the area of the Battle Axe-descended Nordic culture in Scandinavia, has started way earlier than that. Around 6th century BC, about 2600 years ago. The dominant culture in Europe at that time was the Greek culture.

Imho populations and population movements are in iron age not strictly one -Y-Dna- track minded....

With regard to R1b U106- taken to the core- lines like Z304 have a more NW Block kind of spread. Z18 is more Scandic.  Z18 came to Friesland in EMA with the migration ages. The (definite) Germanization of the NW Block was in EMA.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1221068102

Happy Easter to all who celebrate this day. :-)

Rodoorn, I like your wording on the definite Germanisation of the NW Block and fully agree with it.

I first read about the NW Block theory in Lendering and Bosman’s “Edge of Empire,” a book I highly recommend, especially for its extensive quotations from primary sources and multiple maps. Worth checking out for anyone who doesn't know it.

I was sceptical when I first encountered the theory in those pages, but I've warmed to it over the years and so it came as no surprise to me that this paper backs it up. 

To my mind the question of when the Germanisation of the NW Block occurred is one of the big remaining issues that I hope to see resolved. The Migration Period people of the area were undoubtedly Germanic but did the Germanisation occur at an unknown earlier time?

I haven't looked at any clues in McColl et al beyond noting the I1 Roman IA sample from the Hogebeintum terp site. This is now the oldest I-M253 we have from the Netherlands (Z141 > CTS6739). 

I continue to think the Roman primary sources demonstrate that the area had been Germanised by the start of the first millennium but I also wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. (You'll remember what I've posted in the past so I won't do it again). 

Purely theoretically, if the Germanisation took place before the Migration Period, what would be your best case for the timeframe: decades before or centuries? I'm also mindful of Lendering and Bosman's words that "the situation is possibly even more complex than adherents of the Northwest Block hypothesis think."

ADD: hyperlinks to book description and SNP.

@JoinikW, by the way the Danish Isles IA ancestry and as they are most probably a key part of the Anglo-Saxons, were "the spreaders of the (NW) Germanization" of especially the coastal areas (with some inland) around the North Sea....didn't they!?

PS What could have been the influence of Elb-Germanic on Frankish?

[alanarchae]

Imho populations and population movements are in iron age not strictly one -Y-Dna- track minded....

With regard to R1b U106- taken to the core- lines like Z304 have a more NW Block kind of spread. Z18 is more Scandic.  Z18 came to Friesland in EMA with the migration ages. The (definite) Germanization of the NW Block was in EMA.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...Q/edit#gid=1221068102

Happy Easter to all who celebrate this day. :-)

Rodoorn, I like your wording on the definite Germanisation of the NW Block and fully agree with it.

I first read about the NW Block theory in Lendering and Bosman’s “Edge of Empire,” a book I highly recommend, especially for its extensive quotations from primary sources and multiple maps. Worth checking out for anyone who doesn't know it.

I was sceptical when I first encountered the theory in those pages, but I've warmed to it over the years and so it came as no surprise to me that this paper backs it up. 

To my mind the question of when the Germanisation of the NW Block occurred is one of the big remaining issues that I hope to see resolved. The Migration Period people of the area were undoubtedly Germanic but did the Germanisation occur at an unknown earlier time?

I haven't looked at any clues in McColl et al beyond noting the I1 Roman IA sample from the Hogebeintum terp site. This is now the oldest I-M253 we have from the Netherlands (Z141 > CTS6739). 

I continue to think the Roman primary sources demonstrate that the area had been Germanised by the start of the first millennium but I also wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. (You'll remember what I've posted in the past so I won't do it again). 

Purely theoretically, if the Germanisation took place before the Migration Period, what would be your best case for the timeframe: decades before or centuries? I'm also mindful of Lendering and Bosman's words that "the situation is possibly even more complex than adherents of the Northwest Block hypothesis think."

ADD: hyperlinks to book description and SNP.

@JoinikW, by the way the Danish Isles IA ancestry and as they are most probably a key part of the Anglo-Saxons,  were "the spreaders of the (NW) Germanization" of especially the coastal areas (with some inland) around the North Sea....didn't they!?

PS What could have been the influence of Elb-Germanic on Frankish?

One thing I think people should avoid is seeing the NW Block/east north sea population as some kind of losers in history. They seem to have been a coherent genetically distinct
block from 2400BC-400AD. That’s a 2000 year history as a group. Considerably longer than the people who largely (not entirely) replaced them c. 400AD  existed on the same soil. You can’t help but feel respect for a grouping that was so long lived despite living on the interface between the much bigger nordic, north Atlantic and central European blocks. The latter 3 were armed to the teeth through the teeth through the bronze and iron ages. The eastern north sea group must have been a formidable people that could not be displaced easily. And yes i’m sure the other bigger groups would want to displace them given they had control of the lower stretched of the rivers between the Rhine and Elbe and coast.

[alanarchae]

the north-east north sea group is actually of much wider importance to the whole issue of archaeology and genes. It’s an example of how a group can remain genetically unchanged despite archaeology (presumably -im not remotely an expert) showing phases of influence from many directions. If this area had influence from the nordic bronze age, unetice, tumulus, urnfield, Hallstatt, La Tene etc then it doesn’t seem to have changed their genetics.

[Rodoorn]

Happy Easter to all who celebrate this day. :-)

Rodoorn, I like your wording on the definite Germanisation of the NW Block and fully agree with it.

I first read about the NW Block theory in Lendering and Bosman’s “Edge of Empire,” a book I highly recommend, especially for its extensive quotations from primary sources and multiple maps. Worth checking out for anyone who doesn't know it.

I was sceptical when I first encountered the theory in those pages, but I've warmed to it over the years and so it came as no surprise to me that this paper backs it up. 

To my mind the question of when the Germanisation of the NW Block occurred is one of the big remaining issues that I hope to see resolved. The Migration Period people of the area were undoubtedly Germanic but did the Germanisation occur at an unknown earlier time?

I haven't looked at any clues in McColl et al beyond noting the I1 Roman IA sample from the Hogebeintum terp site. This is now the oldest I-M253 we have from the Netherlands (Z141 > CTS6739). 

I continue to think the Roman primary sources demonstrate that the area had been Germanised by the start of the first millennium but I also wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. (You'll remember what I've posted in the past so I won't do it again). 

Purely theoretically, if the Germanisation took place before the Migration Period, what would be your best case for the timeframe: decades before or centuries? I'm also mindful of Lendering and Bosman's words that "the situation is possibly even more complex than adherents of the Northwest Block hypothesis think."

ADD: hyperlinks to book description and SNP.

@JoinikW, by the way the Danish Isles IA ancestry and as they are most probably a key part of the Anglo-Saxons,  were "the spreaders of the (NW) Germanization" of especially the coastal areas (with some inland) around the North Sea....didn't they!?

PS What could have been the influence of Elb-Germanic on Frankish?

One thing I think people should avoid is seeing the NW Block/east north sea population as some kind of losers in history. They seem to have been a coherent genetically distinct
block from 2400BC-400AD. That’s a 2000 year history as a group. Considerably longer than the people who largely (not entirely) replaced them c. 400AD  existed on the same soil. You can’t help but feel respect for a grouping that was so long lived despite living on the interface between the much bigger nordic, north Atlantic and central European blocks. The latter 3 were armed to the teeth through the teeth through the bronze and iron ages. The eastern north sea group must have been a formidable people that could not be displaced easily. And yes i’m sure the other bigger groups would want to displace them given they had control of the lower stretched of the rivers between the Rhine and Elbe and coast.

Absolute agree, when I stated not so long ago that there are traces in my ancestry that are related to that BB ancestry, disbelieve was my fate

Nevertheless this is about the spread of Germanic (ancestry) so imo not weird that this is the core of the discussion. No intention to offend ENS.

[Rodoorn]

Purely theoretically, if the Germanisation took place before the Migration Period, what would be your best case for the timeframe: decades before or centuries? I'm also mindful of Lendering and Bosman's words that "the situation is possibly even more complex than adherents of the Northwest Block hypothesis think."

I guess there is a difference between the coastal and inland dwellers. Danish Isles related ancestry belonged to the first and Elbe Germanic  (Jastorf) ancestry to the second.

What could be a case is that there was about the "Mittelgebirge" in NW Germany there were ramparts build in the third century BC. Probably against incoming Elbe Germanics.

The most famous example are imho the Batavi, they were most probably Chatti derived, which were in essence Elbe Germanics.

The first Salian Frankish "warlord" Choldio was according to Dutch wiki from Thüringen:
"Judging from the Historia Francorum of Gregory of Tours, Chlodio came from Thuringia. There he had a castle at Dispargum on the border of what was then Thuringia (Chlogionem ..., qui apud Dispargum castrum habitabat, quod est in terminum Thoringorum). Based on 11th-century sources, Dispargum is sometimes identified with the Palatinate in Duisburg, Germany."

Admitted just a few glimpses.

So if the ancestors of the Franks spoke a kind of German it was most probably 'inland', Elbe Germanic- so Jastorf- derived.

[Rodoorn]

I'm curios what the position of the Salian Franks is in this respect!

Latest theory about them is that they were a kind "resistance movement" or group against the incoming Saxons (see Van der Tuuk 2021 and Seebold 2013)

I guess they represent in genetic sense another cluster than the Saxons.

This leads me to Lao (2013) about the population structure in the Netherlands. There is a chart with an admixture, and the "clusters" weren't explained in the paper.

But I think  clear that yellow is connected to the incoming Anglo-Saxons and their Dutch Frisian and Saxon heirs, especially in the North-East.

The pink color are imo the Salian Franks, what is called Central North is about the Salland area in the Netherlands, and they also went to the South, towards Belgium, Northern France to found- what's in a name- the state of France.

Still guessing what the orange component is, seems like the East North Sea cluster (ESN) of the paper?

An add.

Here a paper also from 2013 from Abdellaoui et al.


Same kind of distribution the North (= most probably Danish Isles IA, Saxon related) and South (= most probably Frankish related). 



Also with some adds about the phenotype, the Northerners are on average lighter and taller.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201348

[Awood]

@JoinikW, by the way the Danish Isles IA ancestry and as they are most probably a key part of the Anglo-Saxons,  were "the spreaders of the (NW) Germanization" of especially the coastal areas (with some inland) around the North Sea....didn't they!?

PS What could have been the influence of Elb-Germanic on Frankish?

One thing I think people should avoid is seeing the NW Block/east north sea population as some kind of losers in history. They seem to have been a coherent genetically distinct
block from 2400BC-400AD. That’s a 2000 year history as a group. Considerably longer than the people who largely (not entirely) replaced them c. 400AD  existed on the same soil. You can’t help but feel respect for a grouping that was so long lived despite living on the interface between the much bigger nordic, north Atlantic and central European blocks. The latter 3 were armed to the teeth through the teeth through the bronze and iron ages. The eastern north sea group must have been a formidable people that could not be displaced easily. And yes i’m sure the other bigger groups would want to displace them given they had control of the lower stretched of the rivers between the Rhine and Elbe and coast.

Absolute agree, when I stated not so long ago that there are traces in my ancestry that are related to that BB ancestry, disbelieve was my fate

Nevertheless this is about the spread of Germanic (ancestry) so imo not weird that this is the core of the discussion. No intention to offend ENS.

Coming from the E-V22 dude, I would think so.

[Rodoorn]

One thing I think people should avoid is seeing the NW Block/east north sea population as some kind of losers in history. They seem to have been a coherent genetically distinct
block from 2400BC-400AD. That’s a 2000 year history as a group. Considerably longer than the people who largely (not entirely) replaced them c. 400AD  existed on the same soil. You can’t help but feel respect for a grouping that was so long lived despite living on the interface between the much bigger nordic, north Atlantic and central European blocks. The latter 3 were armed to the teeth through the teeth through the bronze and iron ages. The eastern north sea group must have been a formidable people that could not be displaced easily. And yes i’m sure the other bigger groups would want to displace them given they had control of the lower stretched of the rivers between the Rhine and Elbe and coast.

Absolute agree, when I stated not so long ago that there are traces in my ancestry that are related to that BB ancestry, disbelieve was my fate

Nevertheless this is about the spread of Germanic (ancestry) so imo not weird that this is the core of the discussion. No intention to offend ENS.

Coming from the E-V22 dude, I would think so.

Kind of trivial remark, but this potential could end up as only R1b P312 folks could make sensible remarks about BB? And R1b U106 Z18 etc about the Germanic one etc. Is that what I read awood?

Besides the fact that R1b P312 has many sensible people-but aside of that- it would introduce a kind of "Y-DNA apartheid"? Imho absurd.

some add from the paper (thanks to qrts):

E-M34:

CGG105934 A16 F18 NorthernEurope Sweden Southern Sweden/ Skåne 1-400AD NA 1550 1750 1 400 201 IronAge Roman CGG105934 0.60016099999999994 E1b1b1b2a1a6d2~ NA NA


CGG106750 NM1 404/71, FHM 450/63, NorthernEurope Denmark_Baltic Bornholms Sønder 1-400 CE NA 1550 1750 1 400 201 IronAge Roman CGG106750 4.75293 E1b1b1b2a1a6d2~ NA NA.

E-M81:

CGG106737 NM827/47, NorthernEurope Denmark Lollands Nørre 2810 2855 2908 -1011 -905 -958 Late Bronze Age CGG106737 1.57672 E1b1b1b1a1e1b1~ NA NA

Greetz the E-V22 dude

[Qrts]

E-M81:

CGG106737 NM827/47, NorthernEurope Denmark Lollands Nørre 2810 2855 2908 -1011 -905 -958 Late Bronze Age CGG106737 1.57672 E1b1b1b1a1e1b1~ NA NA

This individual is particularly very intriguing since its assigned clade is medieval, but 1) it's not contaminated, 2) it's calibrated and 3) has very good coverage. I believe this might be either E-V13 or E-L19>PF2431 (perhaps related to the Dane at E-FT81966?). We'll see when the data comes out.

[NewEnglander]

Speaking of the data coming out, is there any indication of when that may happen?

[Anglesqueville]

The central and "thorny" question, that of this famous EastScand cluster, of its possible relationship with Latvian_HG and the southern Baltic, has been debated everywhere since the publication of the text, here, on Eurogenes, Molgen, etc. Everyone naturally has their own theory and their own criticisms, that’s normal. What is less normal is that no one seems to think of trying to test the authors' methodology on the available data, and they are abundant thanks to Allentoft. I used the shared IBDs search program used in the study (IBDseq) on a sample of individuals from the EarlyScand, EastScand, Motala, Latvian_HG, Estonia_CW and Poland_GAC clusters, all imputed by Allentoft. Technically this does not contain any difficulty, except that you have to extract the data from Allentoft (by vcftools) to avoid having to work on huge files (the file resulting from the extraction still weighs around 2 gigabytes). I would like to point out in passing that IBDseq works on non-phased data, and therefore does not give any indication relating to diploid data. I had previously used refinedIBD, the successor to IBDseq, which uses phased data, and the resulting IBD segments are inevitably much less abundant and shorter. This is perhaps a problem, which to my knowledge has not been noted by anyone. So here I am in possession of 22 IBD catalogs for the groups mentioned, all in the form of files that can be opened with a spreadsheet, each weighing a few hundred Kb at most. I'm looking for a way to exploit these files, for example by painting chromosomes. If before that someone wants to explore them with a spreadsheet, I can easily share them.