Missing prehistoric women? Sex ratio as an indicator for analyzing the population of Iberia from the 8th to the 3rd millennia B.C.

Dear Author Here are the proofs of your article. • You can submit your corrections online or by fax. • For online submission please insert your corrections in the online correction form. Always indicate the line number to which the correction refers. • Please return your proof together with the permission to publish confirmation. • For fax submission, please ensure that your corrections are clearly legible. Use a fine black pen and write the correction in the margin, not too close to the edge of the page. • Remember to note the journal title, article number, and your name when sending your response via e-mail, fax or regular mail. • Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author names and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown. • Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your answers/corrections. • Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included. Also check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary material if applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript. • The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious consequences. Please take particular care that all such details are correct. • Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally introduced forms that follow the journal’s style. Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are not allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof. • If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder. Please note Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further changes are, therefore, not possible. After online publication, subscribers (personal/institutional) to this journal will have access to the complete article via the DOI using the URL: If you would like to know when your article has been published online, take advantage of our free alert service. For registration and further information, go to: http://www.springerlink.com. Due to the electronic nature of the procedure, the manuscript and the original figures will only be returned to you on special request. When you return your corrections, please inform us, if you would like to have these documents returned. The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01215-x AUTHOR'S PROOF! Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst 1 Article Title Missing prehistoric women? Sex ratio as an indicator for analyzing the population of Iberia from the 8th to the 3rd millennia B.C. 2Article Sub- Title 3Article Copyright - Year Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 (This will be the copyright line in the final PDF) 4Journal Name Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 5 Corresponding Author Family Name Cintas-Peña 6 Particle 7 Given Name Marta 8 Suffix 9 Organization Universidad de Sevilla 10 Division Department of Prehistory and Archaeology 11 Address C/ María de Padilla s/n, Sevilla 41004, Spain 12 e-mail [email protected] 13 Author Family Name Corral 14 Particle 15 Given Name Ana Mercedes Herrero 16 Suffix 17 Organization Universidad Complutense de Madrid 18 Division Department of Prehistory 19 Address C/ Profesor Aranguren s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain 20 e-mail 21 Schedule Received 15 April 2020 22 Revised 23 Accepted 2 October 2020 24 Abstract In the last few decades, archaeology has undergone a profound transformation. The inclusion of techniques from a wide range of other sciences, as well as the specific contribution of physical anthropology, genetics, and paleodemography using the analyses of human remains, has enabled the reconstruction of some key aspects of past populations such as mobility, diet, physical activities, and health status. In addition, the emergence of gender archaeology has led to a great renewal in how societies in the past are conceptualized and approached. Although the gender approach completely relies on the accuracy of the method used for estimating the sex of individuals, the increasing number of publications on this issue rarely focuses on the criteria on which these results are based. The aim of this paper is, firstly, to present the anthropological data AUTHOR'S PROOF! available for the Iberian Mesolithic, the Neolithic, and the Copper Age (8th– 3rd millennia B.C.) and the analysis of this from the perspective of the “sex ratio.” This demographical indicator has allowed us to detect a higher proportion of male individuals than female ones in most of the sites analyzed. Secondly, the different causes of this systematic disproportion (cultural, methodological, and biological) are discussed, concluding that the methodological bias in favor of males presented in research over 40 years ago still exists. 25 Keywords separated by ' - ' Sex ratio - Paleodemography - Iberia - Mesolithic - Late prehistory 26 Foot note information The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01215-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Electronic supplementary material ESM 1 (DOCX 46 kb) AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTEDPROOF 1 2 3ORIGINAL PAPER4 5 6MissingQ1 prehistoric women? Sex ratio as an indicator 7for analyzing the population of Iberia from the 8th to the 3rd 8millennia B.C. 9Marta Cintas-Peña 1 &Ana Mercedes Herrero Corral 2 10 11 Received: 15 April 2020 /Accepted: 2 October 2020 12 #Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 13 Abstract 14 In the last few decades, archaeology has undergone a profound transformation. The inclusion of techniques from a wide range of 15 other sciences, as well as the specific contribution of physical anthropology, genetics, and paleodemography using the analyses of 16 human remains, has enabled the reconstruction of some key aspects of past populations such as mobility, diet, physical activities, 17 and health status. In addition, the emergence of gender archaeology has led to a great renewal in how societies in the past are 18 conceptualized and approached. Although the gender approach completely relies on the accuracy of the method used for 19 estimating the sex of individuals, the increasing number of publications on this issue rarely focuses on the criteria on which 20 these results are based. The aim of this paper is, firstly, to present the anthropological data available for the Iberian Mesolithic, the 21 Neolithic, and the Copper Age (8th–3rd millennia B.C.) and the analysis of this from the perspective of the “sex ratio.”This 22 demographical indicator has allowed us to detect a higher proportion of male individuals than female ones in most of the sites 23 analyzed. Secondly, the different causes of this systematic disproportion (cultural, methodological, and biological) are discussed, 24 concluding that the methodological bias in favor of males presented in research over 40 years ago still exists. 25 Keywords Sex ratio .Paleodemography .Iberia .Mesolithic .Late prehistory 26 27 Introduction 28 Since the emergence of new archaeology and its commitment 29 to a more scientific archaeology (Binford 1962,1971; Clarke 30 1968;Renfrew1973;Schiffer1987) in the 1960s, archaeolo- 31 gy has undergone a profound transformation. The inclusion of 32 techniques and methodologies from other sciences such as 33 physics, chemistry, biology, and demography has left a strong 34 multidisciplinary mark, leading to advances in the reconstruc- 35 tion of past societies that were inconceivable a few decades 36ago. Although it is difficult to highlight one area, the contri- 37bution of physical anthropology, genetics, and 38paleodemography to the advancement of our knowledge of 39prehistoric societies is unquestionable. The remains of human 40bone, previously seen as useless, are now at the center of 41research. With such material records, it is possible to examine 42key social issues such as mobility patterns, nutrition, activi- 43ties, and diseases suffered by both men and women, young 44and old, in past societies. 45In addition to this, the irruption of gender archaeology 46(Conkey and Spector 1984; Bertelsen et al. 1987; Arnold 47et al. 1988; Ehrenberg 1989 Q3; Gero and Conkey 1991; 48Sorensen Q42000) has highlighted the relevance of incorporating 49gender as a basic category of social analysis, distinguishing 50between male and female individuals when approaching to 51past societies. Since gender analysis is strongly bound by the 52sex estimations of skeletons recovered in funerary contexts, 53the dependence of gender archaeology on physical anthropol- 54ogy is very strong. However, publications have mostly as- 55sumed sexual estimations, without considering the methodo- 56logical criteria on which such estimations are based. Both the 57rapid shift towards a multidisciplinary approach and a Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01215-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. *Marta Cintas-Peña [email protected] 1 Department Q2 of Prehistory and Archaeology, Universidad de Sevilla, C/ María de Padilla s/n, 41004 Sevilla, Spain 2 Department of Prehistory, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C/ Profesor Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences _#####################_ https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01215-x JrnlID 12520_ArtID 1215_Proof# 1 - 09/10/2020 AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTEDPROOF 58 significant increase in gender archaeology publications over 59 recent years have, to some extent, prevented reflection and in- 60 depth assessment of the results obtained as well as the 61 methods used. 62 This paper aims to contribute to this issue. Specifically, we 63 present an analysis of the anthropological data available for 64 the study of the “sex ratio”demographical index among 65 Iberian Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic populations. 66 This indicator allows us to quantify the sex ratios in a given 67 society, offering a first insight on the demographic composi- 68 tion of a society, as well as on potential differences or inequal- 69 ities between men and women. 70 Sex ratio as a demographic index 71 The ratio offers us a first demographic approach to a human 72 contingent (Hobbs 2004: 129 et seq.). The formula used to 73 obtain it is RS = 100 * men/women, and it can be expressed in 74 hundreds (105) or units (1.05), showing the number of men 75 (105) per 100 women in each case. 76 Sex ratio in modern populations is usually between 95 and 77 102, while values exceeding the 90–105 limit are considered 78 extreme or unusual (Hobbs 2004: p. 130). At birth, this demo- 79 graphic index is higher for men, with global data between 104 80 and 107 (Hobbs 2004: p. 133). Later in the life cycle, the 81 proportion of men to women changes slightly due to a higher 82 male mortality rate. Additionally, the sex ratio may vary later 83 on in life as a consequence of different factors: greater mobil- 84 ity of one sex, lower female life expectancy linked to risks of 85 reproduction, the role of violence in the increase of male mor- 86 tality, or certain cultural practices aimed at regulating repro- 87 duction, among others. 88 The aforementioned reasons make the sex ratio depen- 89 dent on the stage of life being analyzed, offering fact- 90 based information about the cultural practices and the so- 91 cial organization of human groups. The most obvious cur- 92 rent example of which can be found in countries such as 93 China, Pakistan, and India, whose sex ratio at birth is 94 117.8, 109.9, and 110.5, respectively (Gilmoto 2012: 95 20). We know that these values, which imply a high num- 96 ber of “missing women”(Sen 1990), are related to the 97 practice of female selective abortion and infanticide 98 (Coale and Banister 1994; Klasen and Wink 2003), and 99 are a direct consequence of discrimination against women 100 and the preference for male offspring. However, high sex 101 ratios are not exclusive to contemporary complex societies 102 andtheyhavealsobeendocumentedinnumeroushunter- 103 gatherer, agricultural-livestock and pastoralist groups, 104 whose subsistence levels could be considered equivalent 105 to those of the people that inhabited the European conti- 106 nent between the Upper Paleolithic and the Bronze Age. 107As in the case of the populations of China, Pakistan, 108and India, “extreme”sex ratios at birth presented by the 109Ache (Paraguay) or the Agta (Philippines) have mostly 110been explained as a result of practices of female neglect 111or differential investment in sons and daughters (Hewlett 1121991). Other researchers suggest that high sex ratios may 113be explained by adaptive reasons (Sieff et al. 1990;Page Q5 114et al. 2019). Consequently, it would be a mistake to blind- 115ly compare the social dynamics of these groups with those 116of prehistoric communities or to assume that high sex ra- 117tios are synonymous with gender inequality in all cases. 118However, the data presented is useful for establishing a 119frame of reference, since it shows both diachronic and 120synchronic tendencies that can be useful when assessing 121data from prehistoric archeological records. Therefore, 122ethnography and demography are key tools for explaining 123and understanding data obtained through the anthropolog- 124ical study of archeological remains, which are often in- 125complete (Chamberlain 2006:p.177). 126Methodology and empirical records 127The data analyzed in this paper has been compiled during the 128development of a doctoral research at the University of Seville 129(Cintas-Peña 2020). The database is comprised of a total MNI 130of 2410 from 62 sites in Iberia (Fig. 1), grouped chronologi- 131cally into the Mesolithic, the Neolithic, and the Copper Age. 132This data covers a period between the 8th and the 3rd 133millennia cal B.C. 134The data compiled has been produced and published by 135other researchers (for a complete list of references, see 136Supplementary Material). These works are mainly physical 137anthropological studies carried out in accordance with a stan- 138dardized, scientific methodology, and they have been pub- 139lished and are available for consultation. After collecting the 140data, information was stored in a purpose-specific database. 141The selection of our sample has been made according to three 142criteria: first, the clear chronological adscription of the con- 143texts; second, the existence of bio-archeological data obtained 144using explicitly defined criteria; third, the accessibility of data. 145The resulting set comprises 62 sites, with 20 for the Mesolithic 146(MNI 172), 21 for the Neolithic (MNI 515), and 21 for the 147Chalcolithic (MNI 1723). 148The analysis has been carried out on five levels: (i) general, 149considering the overall values for each period; (ii) site-level, 150distinguishing the highest value among the four categories: 151female or likely female, male or likely male, undetermined 152adult, and non-adult of unknown sex (henceforth F/F?, 153M/M?, UND, and NAD); (iii) site-level, comparing the sex 154ratios; (iv) site-level, selecting only the presence/absence of 155men and women; (v) site-level, selecting only adult individ- 156uals with estimated sex. _####_ Page 2 of 13 Archaeol Anthropol Sci _#####################_ JrnlID 12520_ArtID 1215_Proof# 1 - 09/10/2020 AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTEDPROOF 157 The geographical and temporal scale, as well as the large 158 volume of individuals compiled, ensures both the representa- 159 tiveness of the sample and the validity of the conclusions 160 reached. 161 Analysis 162 The Mesolithic 163 We have compiled data from 20 Mesolithic sites, storing in- 164 formation of MNI 172. Regarding the first level of analysis, 165 this sample is comprised of 61 (35.47%) M/M?, 47 (27.33%) 166 F/F?, 36 (20.93%) UND, and 28 (16.28%) NAD (Table 1). 167 The sex ratio at the Iberian level is 129.8, which implies that if 168 we were looking at a living population, there would be 130 169 men for every 100 women. 170 Secondly, if we examine the general distribution on a site- 171 level, the pattern is slightly different. At ten sites, the highest 172 percentage (Table 1; shaded cells) corresponds to M/M? indi- 173 viduals, while at four sites, F/F? is dominant. At three sites, 174 UND is the most highly represented category, and lastly, in 175 two other places, NAD is dominant. 176 Thirdly, regarding the sex ratio, there is not enough data (ei- 177 ther because of the absence of men or the absence of women) to 178 obtain the value at 12 sites. In the remaining eight places, there 179are four sites where the sex ratio reveals a predominance of males 180(Arapouco, El Collado, Los Canes, and, Moita do Sebastião), 181one in which the index indicates more women (Cabeço do 182Pez), and three sites where the value is balanced and comparable 183with a “natural”sex ratio. Therefore, sex ratio more frequently 184shows a majority of men to women, although in certain cases, the 185values are insufficient. 186On the fourth level of analysis, that is, assessing only individ- 187uals with sexual identification (Fig. 2), at ten of the 20 sites, the 188highest value corresponds to men, compared with five sites 189where the highest value corresponds to women. The major dif- 190ferences are found at El Collado (4F, 9M) and Cabeço das 191Amoreiras (0F, 5M) where, as already indicated in previous 192works (Peyroteo Stjerna 2016: 446), men represent 83.3% of 193the whole MNI. In the remaining five places (Cabeço da 194Arruda, Cingle del Mas Nou, Cueva de Linatzeta, Vale de 195Romeiras, and Várzea da Mó), there is an equal number of 196men and women. 197Finally, if we focus exclusively on adult individuals with 198estimated sex, the results are similar, as there are only four 199non-adult individuals with estimated sex. They correspond to 200the sites of Cabeço da Arruda (1 M?), El Collado (1 M?), and 201Los Canes (1 M) from El Truchiro/La Garma (1 F?). If we 202excluded them from the general data, the sample would com- 203prise 46 F/F? and 58 M/M?, with 126.09 as the sex ratio on the 204Iberian level. Fig. 1 Sites included in the analysis. aThe Mesolithic. bThe Neolithic. cThe Chalcolithic. Author: Rodrigo Paulos Bravo Archaeol Anthropol Sci _#####################_ Page 3 of 13 _####_ JrnlID 12520_ArtID 1215_Proof# 1 - 09/10/2020 AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTEDPROOF 205 Therefore, male individuals form the majority on the 206 Iberian level as well as on the site-level. The five levels of 207 analysis reveal a predominance of men versus women. 208 Different research carried out focusing on Europe showed that 209 26% of the Mesolithic population buried there were men, 210 while 20% were women (GrünbergQ7 2000: p. 257). However, 211 both in Iberia and on the continent, data shows a high number 212 of undetermined adults and non-adults, which demands 213 caution. 214The Neolithic 215Regarding the Neolithic, we have compiled the data available for 216MNI of 515, distributed with great heterogeneity over 21 sites. 217The set comprises 119 M/M? (23.11%), 79 F/F? (15.34%), 174 218UND (33.79%), and 143 NAD (27.77%) (Table 2), with a sex 219ratio of 151, incompatible with the reference values for a natural 220population. The high number of undetermined cases can be par- 221tially explained by the collective burial practices that began in the t1:1Table 1 The Mesolithic sites. F/F?, female or likely female; M/M?,maleorlikelymale;UND, undetermined adult; NAD,nonadult of unknown sex. Italicized values Q6 show the highest percentage t1:2Site F/F? M/M? UND NAD Total Sex ratio t1:3N%N%N%N%N t1:4Aizpea 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t1:5Arapouco 8 36.36 10 45.45 1 4.55 3 13.64 22 125.00 t1:6Braña-Arintero 0 0.00 2100.000 0.00 0 0.00 2 - t1:7Cabeço da Arruda 6 20.00 6 20.00 13 46.67 5 16.67 30 100.00 t1:8Cabeço das Amoreiras 0 0.00 583.330 0.00 1 16.67 6 - t1:9Cabeço do Pez 934.626 23.08 7 26.92 4 15.38 26 66.67 t1:10 Casa Corona 150.0000.00 00 150.002- t1:11 Cingle del Mas Nou 1 14.29 1 14.29 0 0 571.437100.00 t1:12 Colomba 0 0.00 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t1:13 Cueva de Linatzeta 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1100.001- t1:14 CuevadeNerja 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t1:15 El Collado 4 26.67 960.001 6.67 1 6.67 15 225.00 t1:16 El Truchiro/La Garma 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t1:17 Jaizkibel 3/J3 0 0.00 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t1:18 Los Azules 0 0.00 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t1:19 Los Canes 1 25.00 250.001 25.00 0 0.00 4 200.00 t1:20 Moita do Sebastião 10 34.48 12 41.38 4 13.79 3 10.34 29 120.00 t1:21 Tito Bustillo 0 0.00 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t1:22 Vale de Romeiras 4 20.00 4 20.00 840.004 20.00 20 100.00 t1:23 Várzea da Mó 0 0.00 0 0.00 1100.0000.00 1 - t1:24 Total 47 27.33 61 35.47 36 20.93 28 16.28 172 129.79 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Aizpea Arapouco Braña-Arintero Cabeço da Arruda Cabeço das Amoreiras Cabeço do Pez Casa Corona Cingle del Mas Nou Colomba Cueva de Linatzeta Cueva de Nerja El Collado El Truchiro / La Garma Jaizkibel 3 / J3 Los Azules Los Canes Moita do Sebasão Tito Busllo Vale de Romeiras Várzea da Mó M /M? F / F? Fig. 2 Individuals with sex estimation for the Mesolithic sites. M/M? male or likely male. F/F? female or likely female _####_ Page 4 of 13 Archaeol Anthropol Sci _#####################_ JrnlID 12520_ArtID 1215_Proof# 1 - 09/10/2020 AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTEDPROOF 222 Neolithic period. The reuse of spaces produces commingled de- 223 posits, complicating the individualization and the sexual estima- 224 tion of the skeletons. 225 In relation to the second level of analysis, at seven of the 21 226 sites, the greatest amount of individuals observed (Table 2; 227 shaded cells) corresponds to M/M? (Algar do Bom Santo, 228 Camí de Can Grau, Cerro Virtud, Costamar, Cueva de 229 Chaves, La Tarayuela, and Los Cascajos), in six cases to 230 NAD (Alto del Reinoso, Azután, Cova de les Agulles, La 231 Caserna de Sant Pau del Camp, La Sima, and Polideportivo 232 Martos), at three sites to UND (Algar do Barrão, Bòbila 233 Madurell, Can Gambús), and in only two places to F/F? (La 234 Lámpara and Minas de Gavá). The remaining two places 235 (Alberite and Paternanbidea) have the same number of F/F 236 as M/M? 237 On the third level, and considering the sex ratio, at seven 238 sites, the data is insufficient to obtain the value. At the remain- 239 ing 14, we found a balanced sex ratio in two places (Alberite 240 and Paternanbidea), an index favorable to men in seven (Algar 241 do Barrão, Algar do Bom Santo, Alto del Reinoso, Camí de 242 Can Grau, Cerro Virtud, La Tarayuela, and Los Cascajos),and 243 a figure which indicates more women in five contexts (Bòbila 244Madurell, Can Gambús, La Caserna de Sant Pau del Camp, La 245Sima, and Minas de Gavá). Three places stand out because of 246their extreme values: La Tarayuela (SR = 1100, 11 M/M? ver- 247sus 1 F/F?), Los Cascajos (SR = 575, 23 M/M? versus 4 F/F?), 248and La Sima SR = 22.22, 2 M/M? versus 9 F/F?). Assigning 249the number of undetermined to the minority group, whether 250male or female, would not balance the sex ratio at any of these 251three sites. 252A detail worthmentioning is the data from Bòbila Madurell 253and Can Gambús, where according to the publication (Allièse 2542016), the anthropological collection is comprised of 61 255(MNI = 140) and 42 (MNI = 57) UND individuals, respective- 256ly. This data has been collected from the most recent anthro- 257pological study (Allièse 2016) that covers a greater number of 258subjects than the previous one (Roig Buxo et al. 2010). Allièse 259considers that the poor state of skeletal preservation does not 260allow a reliable sexual estimation to be carried out in most 261cases, which consequently prevents the establishment of a 262discussion in terms of sex ratio, which goes beyond simply 263saying that men and women are present in the archeological 264record (Allièse 2016: pp. 83, 154 and 227). The authors of the 265reports linked to the project called “Sepulturas Neolíticas” t2:1Table 2 The Neolithic sites. F/F?, female or likely female; M/M?,maleorlikelymale;UND, undetermined adult; NAD,nonadult of unknown sex. Italicized values show the highest percentage t2:2Site F/F? M/M? UND NAD Total Sex ratio t2:3N%N%N%N%N t2:4Alberite 1 50.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 100.0 t2:5Algar do Barrao 2 10.00 3 15.00 11 55.00 4 20.00 20 150.0 t2:6Algar do Bom Santo 3 20.00 853.333 20.00 1 6.67 15 266.7 t2:7Alto del Reinoso 6 14.29 13 30.95 8 19.05 15 35.71 42 216.7 t2:8Azután 0 0.00 1 11.11 3 33.33 555.569- t2:9Bòbila Madurell 13 9.29 12 8.57 61 43.57 54 38.57 140 92.3 t2:10 Camí de Can Grau 11 28.95 12 31.58 5 13.16 10 26.32 38 109.1 t2:11 Can Gambús 8 14.04 7 12.28 42 73.68 00.005787.5 t2:12 Castelo Belinho 0 0.00 3 18.75 10 62.50 3 18.75 16 - t2:13 Cerro Virtud 2 18.18 545.454 36.36 0 0.00 11 250.0 t2:14 Costamar 0 0.00 457.140 0.00 3 42.86 7 - t2:15 Cova de les Agulles 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 40.00 660.0010 - t2:16 Cueva de Chaves 0 0.00 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t2:17 La Caserna de Sant Pau del Camp 4 15.38 3 11.54 3 11.54 16 61.54 26 75.0 t2:18 La Lámpara 1100.000 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 - t2:19 La Sima 9 34.62 2 7.69 5 19.23 10 38.46 26 22.2 t2:20 La Tarayuela 1 5.88 11 64.71 2 11.76 3 17.65 17 1100.0 t2:21 Los Cascajos 4 11.11 23 63.89 6 16.67 3 8.33 36 575.0 t2:22 Minas de Gavá 730.435 21.74 6 26.09 5 21.74 23 71.4 t2:23 Paternanbidea 5 38.46 5 38.46 17.69215.3813100.0 t2:24 Polideportivo de Martos 2 40.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 360.005- t2:25 Total 79 15.34 119 23.11 174 33.79 143 27.77 515 150.6 Archaeol Anthropol Sci _#####################_ Page 5 of 13 _####_ JrnlID 12520_ArtID 1215_Proof# 1 - 09/10/2020 AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTEDPROOF 266 hold a different opinion; they do carry out a sexual adscription 267 for a higher number of individuals, and use this data as the 268 basis for other works (Ruiz et al. 2010; Fontanals-Coll et al. 269 2015). The divergence in the number of M/M? and F/F? in 270 each analysis is significant; we will return to this issue in the 271 “Discussion”section. 272 On the fourth level of analysis, if we focus only on the 273 individuals with sexual determination (Fig. 3), the number 274 of M/M? exceeds the number of F/F? at 10 sites, while in 275 seven places, the situation is the inverse, and in two, there is 276 an equilibrium. We have no data for the remaining site. 277 Finally, if we consider only adult individuals with estimat- 278 ed sex, we should exclude three individuals from Los 279 Cascajos (1 F, 1 M?, 1 M), one from Minas de Gavá (1 M), 280 one from Camí de Can Grau (1 F), two from Paternanbidea (1 281 F, 1 F?), two from Alto del Reinoso (2M), and one from Cerro 282 Virtud (1 M?). Without them, the total amount of F/F? and 283 M/M? isof 75 and 113, respectively, which gives a sex ratio of 284 150.67. 285 Consequently, the results are very similar to those of the 286 Mesolithic. A high sex ratio indicating a greater male presence 287 is observed both in general and in site-level terms. 288 The Copper Age 289 The 21 sites selected for the analysis presented here yield a 290 MNI of 1723: 334 M/M? (19.38%), 287 F/F? (16.66%), 492 291 UND (28.55%), and 610 NAD (35.40%) (Table 3). The sex 292 ratio gives us a value of 116.38, showing once again the in- 293 compatibility between the funerary population and a natural 294 demographic curve. Notwithstanding, the high number of un- 295 determined individuals (1102 if we add UND and NAD) re- 296 quires prudence. 297 With respect to the category with the highest representation 298 at each of the sites (Table 3; shaded values), we can see that in 299 up to nine of the 21 places, most individuals correspond to the 300 NAD group. These are the sites of Pico Ramos, Huerta 301Montero, San Juan Ante Portam Latinam, Perdigões, Soto 302de Henares, Camino de las Yeseras, El Perdido, El Tomillar, 303and Aldeagordillo. The second highest category is that of 304M/M?, which prevails in Fuente Celada, Cerro de la Cabeza, 305La Vital, and Cueva de Nardakoste IV, followed by UND in 306Paimogo I, La Pijotilla, and Valle de las Higueras. Finally, 307F/F? have a high representation only in Valencina, while in 308La Molina and La Magdalena, the number of men and women 309is the same, and in El Rebollosillo, those of UND and NAD 310have the highest representation. 311The fact that UND and NAD are the majority at 13 of the 31221 sites prevents us from seeing clear differences based on 313sex. As in the Neolithic period, during the Copper Age, the 314funerary practice of collective burial and re-utilization of 315spaces makes it very difficult to analyze the anthropological 316remains. High numbers of sexually undetermined individuals 317are undoubtedly linked to the characteristics of the context, in 318which it is not always possible to individualize the skeletons 319to obtain a clear sexual diagnosis. 320Thirdly, regarding the sex ratio, at two of the sites, the data 321is insufficient to obtain the index; in 11 places, the number 322obtained is favorable to men, in six to women, and in the 323remaining two, the value is compatible with the natural sex 324ratio. It is more frequent to find a high sex ratio (prevalence of 325men) than a low one (prevalence of women). 326Concerning the fourth level of analysis (Fig. 4), at 12 of the 32721 sites, there are more men than women, while at seven sites, 328the category of women has higher values, and finally, in two 329places (Pico Ramos and La Molina), the number of males and 330females is the same. It suggests that it may have been more 331common for men to have access to inhumation funerary prac- 332tices than women, although the high number of undetermined 333people should not be forgotten. The quantitative differences 334between men and women are especially marked in Huerta 335Montero (15 F/F? versus 29 M/M?), Fuente Celada (1 F/F? 336versus 2 M/M?), Camino de las Yeseras (16 F/F? versus 6 337M/M?), Cueva de Nardakoste IV (2 F/F? versus 6 M/M?), 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Alberite Algar Barrao Algar Bom Santo Alto del Reinoso Azután Bòbila Madurell Camí de Can Grau Can Gambús Castelo Belinho Cerro Virtud Costamar Cova de les Agulles Cueva de Chaves La Caserna St. Pau La Lámpara La Sima La Tarayuela Los Cascajos Minas de Gavá Paternanbidea Pol. Martos M / M? F / F? Fig. 3 Individuals with sex estimation for the Neolithic sites. M/M? male or likely male. F/F? female or likely female _####_ Page 6 of 13 Archaeol Anthropol Sci _#####################_ JrnlID 12520_ArtID 1215_Proof# 1 - 09/10/2020 AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTEDPROOF 832 excavada en Almendralejo (Badajoz). In: Gutiérrez Redomero E, 833 Sánchez Andrés Á, Galera Olmo V (eds) Diversidad humana y 834 antropología aplicada. Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, pp. 539–548 835 Olalde I et al (2019) The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the 836 last 8000 years. Science 363:1230–1234 837 Palomo Díez S (2015) Caracterización genética de las poblaciones de las 838 Edades del Cobre y del Bronce de la submeseta norte de la Península 839 Ibérica. PhD. Dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 840 http://eprints.ucm.es/34256/ 841 Pecero Espín JC (2016) Caracterización antropológica de los restos óseos 842 humanos del tholos de Montelirio. In: Fernández Flores Á, García 843 Sanjuán L, Díaz-Zorita Bonilla M (eds) Montelirio. Un gran 844 monumento megalítico de la Edad del Cobre. Junta de Andalucía. 845 Consejería de Cultura, Sevilla, pp. 409–442 846 Pérez Villa A (2014) Prácticas funerarias de la Edad del Bronce en la 847 cuenca media-alta del Tajo. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad 848 Nacional de Educación a Distancia 849 Peyroteo Stjerna R (2016) Death in the Mesolithic or the mortuary prac- 850 tices of the last hunter-gatherers of the South-Western Iberian 851 Peninsula, 7th-6th Millennium BCE. Dissertation, Uppsala 852 Universitet, Ph.D http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid= 853 diva2%3A892353&dswid=6457 854 Rascón J, Cambra-Moo O, Pimentel G, González A, Campo M (2011) 855 Influencia del estado de preservación de los restos óseos en el 856 diagnóstico paleopatológico. Proceedings X Congreso de 857 Paleopatología Nacional, Madrid, In, pp 45–59 858 Rascón J (2017) Análisis de las diferencias sexuales en la morfología del 859 esqueleto y de la distribución de caracteres de interés relacionados 860 con el sexo. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 861 https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/10486/680138 862 Renfrew C (1973) Before civilisation: the radiocarbon revolution and 863 prehistoric Europe. Jonathan Cape, London 864 Roig Buxo J, Coll JM, Gibaja Bao JF, Chambon P, Villar V, Ruiz J, 865 Terradas X, Subirà ME (2010) La necrópolis de Can Gambús-1 866 (Sabadell, Barcelona). Nuevos conocimientos sobre las prácticas 867 funerarias durante el Neolítico medio en el Noreste de la Península 868 Ibérica. Trab Prehist 67(1):59–84 869 Rojo Guerra MÁ, Garrido Pena R, Morán Dauchez G, García-Martínez 870 de Lagrán I, Kunst M (2005) Del enterramiento colectivo a la tumba 871 individual: el sepulcro de La Sima en Miño de Medinaceli, Soria, 872 España BSAA Arqueología: Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de 873 Arqueología:11–42 874 Ruiz J, Villar V, Subirà i de Galdàcano ME (2010) La poblaciónNeolítica 875 de sepulcros de fosa de Can Gambús 1 (Sabadell). In: Gutiérrez 876Redomero E, Sánchez Andrés Á, Olmo Galera V (eds) Diversidad 877humana y antropología aplicada. Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, pp 878593–602 879Ruff CB (1981) A reassessment of demographic estimates for Pecos 880Pueblo. Am J Phys Anthropol 54(1):147–151 881Sen A (1990) More than 100 million women are missing. The New York 882Review of Books,December 2. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/ 8831990/12/20/more-than-100-million-women-are-missing/ 884Schiffer MB (1987) Formation processes of the archaeological record. 885University of New Mexico Press, Alburquerque 886Sieff DF, Betzig L, Cronk L, Fix AG, Flinn M, Sattenspiel L, Gibson K, 887Herring DA, Howell N, Johansson SR, Pavlík Z, Sheets JW, Smith 888EA, Voland E, Siegelkow E (1990) Explaining biased sex ratios in 889human populations: a critique of recent studies [and comments and 890reply]. Curr Anthropol 31(1):25–48 891Silva AM (2002) Antropologia funeraria e paleobiologia das populaçoes 892portuguesas (litorais) do Neolitico final/Calcolitico. Dissertation, 893Universidade de Coimbra, Ph.D 894Silva AM (2003) Portuguese populations of late Neolithic and 895chalcolithic periods exhumed from collective burials: an overview. 896Anthropologie 41(1–2):55–64 897Stig Sorensen ML (2000) Gender Archaeology. Blackwell 898Stone AC, Milner GR, Paabo S, Stoneking M (1996) Sex determination 899of ancient human skeletons using DNA. Am J Phys Anthropol 99: 900231–238 901Stojanowski CM, Seidemann RM, Doran GH (2002) Differential skeletal 902preservation at Windover Pond: causes and consequences. Am J 903Phys Anthropol 119(1):15–26 904Vegas Aramburu JI (2014) Testimonios de violencia a finales del 905Neolítico. El abrigo de San Juan ante Portam Latinam. In: Guerra 906Doce E, Fernández Manzano J (eds) La muerte en la prehistoria 907ibérica: casos de estudio. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, 908pp 77–104 909Walker PL, Johnson JR, Lambert PM (1988) Age and sex biases in the 910preservation of human remains. Am J Phys Anthropol 76(2):183– 911188 912Weiss KM (1972) On systematic bias in skeletal sexing. Am J Phys 913Anthropol 37:239–2350 914White TD, Folkens PA (2005) The human bone manual. Elsevier 915Academic Press, USA 916Publisher’snoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- 917tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 918 Archaeol Anthropol Sci _#####################_ Page 13 of 13 _####_ JrnlID 12520_ArtID 1215_Proof# 1 - 09/10/2020 AUTHOR'S PROOF! UNCORRECTED PROOF AUTHOR QUERIES AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES. Q1. Please check the captured title if presented correctly. Q2. Please check if the affiliations are presented correctly. Q3. The citation “Ehrenberg”has been changed to “Ehrenberg, 1989”to match the author name/date in the reference list. Please check if the change is fine in this occurrence and modify the subsequent occurrences, if necessary. Q4. Ref. "Sorensen 2000" is cited in the body but its bibliographic information is missing. Kindly provide its bibliographic information in the list. Q5. Ref. "Page et al. 2019" is cited in the body but its bibliographic information is missing. Kindly provide its bibliographic information in the list. Q6. The shaded emphasis found in the tables were set to italics. Please check if this is correct. Q7. Ref. "Grünberg 2000" is cited in the body but its bibliographic information is missing. Kindly provide its bibliographic information in the list. Q8. The citation “Fernández Crespo y De-la-Rúa 2015”has been changed to “Fernández-Crespo and de-la-Rúa-Vaca, 2015”to match the author name/date in the reference list. Please check if the change is fine in this occurrence and modify the subsequent occurrences, if necessary. Q9. Ref. "Herrero -Corral 2019" is cited in the body but its bibliographic information is missing. Kindly provide its bibliographic information in the list. Q10. Ref. "Velasco Vázquez 2005" is cited in the body but its bibliographic information is missing. Kindly provide its bibliographic information in the list. Q11. The citation “Krogman, 1986”has been changed to “Krogman, 1962”to match the author name/date in the reference list. Please check if the change is fine in this occurrence and modify the subsequent occurrences, if necessary. Q12. The citation “Rascón 2011”has been changed to “Rascón, 2017”to match the author name/date in the reference list. Please check if the change is fine in this occurrence and modify the subsequent occurrences, if necessary. Q13. The citation “Milner et al., 2019”has been changed to “Milner et al., 2018”to match the author name/date in the reference list. Please check if the change is fine in this occurrence and modify the subsequent occurrences, if necessary. Q14. References [Aliaga Almela, 2012, Brown, 1981, Bruzek, 2002, Gómez Vázquez, 2014, González Wagner et al, 1996, Gusinde, 1982, Harris, 2009, Harris & Ross, 1999, Irurita & Alemán, 2016, Nicklisch et al, 2005, Nielsen et al, 2010, Palomo Díez, 2015, Pecero Espín, 2016, Pérez Villa, 2014, Stig Sorensen, 2000] were provided in the reference list; however, this was not mentioned or cited in the manuscript. As a rule, all references given in the list of references should be cited in the main body. Please provide its citation in the body text.