Thinking about limit-case scenarios, if the bottleneck lasted long enough, this could be a matter of 5% of the men having 1+epsilon male offspring and 95% having 1-epsilon male offspring. For even relatively modest values of epsilon that would give quite a large deviation in the population, given enough time.
The article suggests this went on for about 2000 years (8000-6000 BCE) which is 100 generations, so if epsilion was 0.05 then the favoured class would have fathered 99.5% of the male population at the end of that time (most of whom would have fallen into the unfavoured class over time, of course.) Because all women reproduced (more or less) I think they just fall out of the calculation.
So you are correct.
[Edit: the article actually suggests it was as much as 4000 years, so an even smaller disparity could work.]
Thinking about limit-case scenarios, if the bottleneck lasted long enough, this could be a matter of 5% of the men having 1+epsilon male offspring and 95% having 1-epsilon male offspring. For even relatively modest values of epsilon that would give quite a large deviation in the population, given enough time.
The article suggests this went on for about 2000 years (8000-6000 BCE) which is 100 generations, so if epsilion was 0.05 then the favoured class would have fathered 99.5% of the male population at the end of that time (most of whom would have fallen into the unfavoured class over time, of course.) Because all women reproduced (more or less) I think they just fall out of the calculation.
So you are correct.
[Edit: the article actually suggests it was as much as 4000 years, so an even smaller disparity could work.]