I have to agree with denuseri, here. There can be many ways to interpret this evidence. But the suggestion that women participated in those areas is a not unreasonable one, and may be the most likely conclusion. For example, one of the ways they determined that women helped in the drawing of those cave paintings is the length of the ring fingers on the palm prints. While it's true that, in modern society, women tend to have ring fingers about the same length as their index fingers, while ring fingers of men tend to be longer, this is not an exclusive test. There are women with longer ring fingers and men with shorter.

So in all...I submit that their abandoning scientific objectivity by providing preconceived subjective opinion to their findings.
As near as I can tell from the articles it's the journalists who are leaping to the conclusions. The science is merely stating that there is evidence that women participated in areas which were previously believed to be strictly male pursuits. The extent of that participation, and whether or not their is any deeper meaning to it, are speculation which seems to originate with the writers, not necessarily with the scientists. It seems to me that the scientists are overturning the "preconceived subjective opinion(s)" by advancing alternate hypotheses.