> In the absence of evidence, there is no reason to assume that the
>sounded (substantially) different from the males.
Not sure - but female voices are not pitched higher than males in humans
but rather they are the normal voices. I know that's semantics but it's
the perception than feminine = higher pitched and more fragile/delicate
etc. that is picked up in the press to assume this is the case for
other species and that therefore Neanderthal females would be "squeaky"!
In men it's the effect of the testosterone (and other testicular
generated hormones) that changes the physiology thus reducing the pitch
of the voice.
Although I'm not sure if this is an intended evolutionary trait: sexual
selection based on deep voices for males
or an unintended trait: testosterone in males leads to greater
robusticity of the musculo skeletal frame which in turn lead to changes
enlargening the larynx and thus increasing the length of the vocal cords
creating lower pitched voices.
Anyway I'm not sure how applicable using human physiology as a model is
to Neanderthalensis as both males and females of that species exhibit
more robust bodies (i.e. brawnier) and thus the changes to the larynx
may not be as sexually dimorphic. You would have to sample a significant
number of males and female Neanderthal skulls to see if there was a
difference to really prove it and since there aren't that many surviving
specimens it's not going to happen!