Discrepency between "Germanic" y-dna markers R1b-U106 and I1*?

[de Burgh II]

This has got me curious; whenever you read about these two haplogroups; you will always have an excerpt from an article that mentions both of them with "... ancient Germanic tribes..." So where do you draw the line over what is truly "Germanic" or not? People could raise the argument that I1* an more of an insular, Mesolithic Norse (as well as "Eastern, continental Germanics" in antiquity) haplogroup marker that was present before the coming of Indo-European "Germanics" that came during the Bronze Age. Whereas R1b-U106 is associated with western, continental Germanics (Frisians, Danes, North Germans, etc.) along the North Sea fringe. The argument for them being the "proto-Germanic" forebears since they brought with them the Germanic, Indo-European language with them.

My question is.... if you had to choose... which one is the "true" Germanic marker?

[cosmoo]

Both are equally Germanic (together with R1a Z284 and some L664 branches), and were essential in process of Germanic ethnogenesis (there were some quite rare haplogroups as well which entered Germanics, such as R1b S182, certain I2a2 branches, etc.)
I1 came to Scandinavia just a bit before Indo-Europeans in Late Neolithic. It is not Mesolithic at all, real aboriginal haplogroups of north are certain I2 branches (I2a1b and northern I2a1a, most notably).

[Not a Cop]

U106 and I1 are just two biggest haplos which show most evident proto-germanic origin, my subclade, R-P312-DF99 is f.e. def. germanic also, but it's relatievly small (80 people in project so far) compared to thoose you mentioned, yet it's germanic origin is pretty evident from it's distribution.

https://i.imgur.com/2SEz9xO.png

Where are some other smaller clades which are undoubtly germanic in origin, it's just current level of testing is does not allow us to make any futher conclusions.


As for which one is Truest Germanics i guess the correct answer is that they are both equally Germanic, as it's pretty evident that they've been in genepool since formation of Germanic identity.

[Rethel]

So where do you draw the line over what is truly "Germanic" or not?

There, where is thrue Indoeuropeanness, as Germanians are Indoeuropeans,
so logically, the part which is IE is truely Germanic, than this, which is not IE.

the same with other levels. For example, more polish is this stuff, which is more
slavic than germanic, even if this germanic was a part of polishness since centuries,
becasue slavness is a source and identity of Poles, not germanianess.


Both are equally Germanic

But he is asking which is truer.

Whites and Blacks are both equally Americans, but
the white is more truer Uncle Sam than a Negro.

Just like that...



As for which one is Truest Germanics i guess the correct answer is that they are both equally Germanic, as it's pretty evident that they've been in genepool since formation of Germanic identity.

But Germanic identity is Indoeuropean, and I1 are not IE, and at the begining
of that germanianness, pre-IE were subjugated caste of people, so they could
not be a part of the same "identity" - as the legend about three original castes
says - just as chłops were not the same folk as Sarmatians or Slavs and Czuds.