Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Lost Worlds -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) the mining basket.

Number 2. We will build
the schools of the future

through our 15-billion-dollar
Better Schools Plan

so that our kids get
more individual attention

to be able to reach
their full potential.

Number 3.

We are investing in the world-class
infrastructure of the future,

like the National Broadband Network,
to build the businesses of tomorrow,

small and large.

Number 4. We will continue to invest

in our world-class health and
hospital system and add to it

through Australia's first national
disability insurance scheme.

And number 5.

We will continue to build
a clean energy future for Australia

to deal with climate change.

And on the way through
we will also continue

to support families
under financial pressure

by preserving proper protections
in the workplace

including through penalty rates
and overtime.

So we believe in building the future.

Mt Abbott believes
in cutting for the future

and cutting to the bone.

Mr Abbott's Treasury spokesman says

they will have to find
70 billion dollars,

which is an amount equal
to the total of the Australian
Government's payments

to the states for hospitals.

But Mr Abbott has so far
refused to tell us

where his 70 billion dollars of cuts
to jobs, education and hospitals

would come from.

And now Mr Abbott has confirmed

that the Goods and Services Tax
is back on the table,

failing to rule out
whether the rate will rise

or whether it will now
be extended to food.

Finally, if we are going to build
Australia's future together,

what Australia needs is a new way
of politics for the future as well

and the end to
wall-to-wall negativity,

bringing government, businesses
and unions together

around the same table

rather than continuing
the politics of division.

This, I believe, is the way we can
build Australia's future together.

In an ancient time,
in a distant place,

a young child lived

and died,

never again to see the light of day

until now.

There's something happening here.
I think we've found something.

Now a scientific team
works tirelessly around the globe

to decipher the mysteries
of this lost child's life.

With nothing more than dirt
and shards of bone

they'll try to unlock the entire
landscape of an ancient era...

while a young New York artist
seeks to recreate the child itself,

a child unlike any
he has ever seen before.

Together, they believe
they can reconstruct

a missing chapter
of an ancient story...


And for the first time

we will gaze upon the face

of the world's oldest child.

Viktor Deak is a man
who brings the dead back to life.

A classically trained sculptor,

he helps scientists visualise
long-extinct pre-human species.

But the commission
that just landed in his inbox

is unlike anything
he's attempted before.

He's been let in on a secret.

It's a 3-D X-ray of an ancient skull,

or rather, the pieces of one.

The skull is in worse condition
than he expected,

the pieces crushed and distorted.

Deak has his work cut out for him.

The archaeological team
that sent it to him

has not yet been able
to confirm the species -

a crucial first step
in unlocking the skull's story.

But Deak thinks
he may be able to help.

For him, the story
this skull can tell is priceless.

It's a tale that began
half a world away

with the find of a lifetime.


There's something happening here.

Dr Harold Dibble
has spent three decades

digging up prehistoric stone tools.


But this discovery trumps them all.

(Talk excitedly)

This is the first skull
he has ever found.

You never expect to come across
them because they're so rare.

Any human fragments are significant

but when you have one this complete
it suddenly becomes a super find.

A skull can tell us things about
the early humans who lived in Africa

that stone tools cannot.

It may reveal brand-new information
about our origins and evolution...

because this skull dates
from a critical, mysterious period

of our species' past.

Determining the exact date
of the skull is an elaborate process.

The walls are pocked with holes
from previous samples.

Each layer is analysed

using a technique called
"optically stimulated luminescence",

which measures the last time
the soil was hit by sunlight,

in particular small grains of quartz
in the soil.

As the quartz grains
were buried in darkness

their unique structure
began accumulating loose electrons.

Counting the electrons
reveals how long the layer -

and any bones or artefacts
within it -

was buried.

The test reveals that the skull
is 108,000 to 110,000 years old.

It hails from a critical moment
in history...

an era so ancient
it's hard to even comprehend.

Christianity dates back 2000 years,

Egypt's pyramids around 5000 years,

agriculture not even 10,000 years.

At 108,000 years old, the skull
is 10 times more ancient than that.

It was a time of great transition
that is little understood.

For four million years
many species of pre-humans evolved,

only to go extinct,

until, over much of the earth,
there were only two -

stocky, fair-skinned Neanderthals,

adapted to life
in northern latitudes,

and leaner,
darker-skinned Homo sapiens,

shaped by the African landscape.

It's not certain
which this skull is -

Neanderthal, Homo sapien
or something previously unknown.

Perhaps it's a sort of missing link,

a glimpse of our species
in transition

from primitive to modern.

Either way, it's priceless.

And after more than 100,000 years
in the soil

the bones
are as fragile as eggshells.

If the archaeologists aren't careful

the bones could be destroyed
where they lay.

Dibble orders two plaster casts
of the area surrounding the skull...

the first to replicate every detail
as he found it...

The top part...

..and the second to keep the bones
from crumbling to dust.

Think those two layers'll be enough?
I'd put another one there.

One of Harold's first calls
is to Jean-Jacques Hublin,

a director
of the Max Planck Institute

for Evolutionary Anthropology

in Germany.


Even for a man
of Hublin's professional reputation

a find like this skull
is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.

A leading expert
in Stone Age human anatomy,

Hublin studies the teeth
in order to make a rough estimate

of the individual's age
at time of death.

The size of the brain case
indicates that it is a child.

The eruption of the molars
gives him a further clue.

In a modern child
it would be very young -

a six-year-old.

Did he or she play
and learn and laugh,

like Moroccan children do today?

Could this skeleton be just like us -
the world's oldest child?

Scientifically, it's invaluable.

Children are rarely discovered.

But they can offer critical insights

into the evolution
of the developmental hallmarks

that make us a unique species.

Fragmentary as it is,

this is the most complete
juvenile ever found in Africa

for the critical
70,000-year window of time

when our species first emerged.

Dibble doesn't know yet
if it is male or female

but he decides on a feminine
Moroccan name - Bouchra.

It means "good news", a fitting
description of the discovery.

The skull will be taken to a lab

with the latest analytical tools.

But as they mark out
a block of sediment for removal

they make a fresh discovery.

So what've we got here?

We have a series of ribs.
It's not just one isolated.

It's several.

Actually this, this looks
like a clavicle, this stuff.

And so it could pretty much
be the upper part

of the trunk of this child.

Bouchra isn't just a skull,
she's a skeleton -

or at least part of one.

They find pieces of her upper torso
and perhaps her leg.

If this is really part
of the body of this child

it makes the extraction
a little bit more complicated.

We may have to remove
a bigger part of the site.

You guys ready?

All right.
Don't have a heart attack, Paul.

That's a lot of weight.


Safely encased in a half-metre chunk
of dirt and plaster,

Bouchra's skull and bones
will now leave Dibble's hands.

He will travel separately
to Hublin's lab in Germany

where Bouchra
will be brought to him...

just as soon as the paperwork
is approved.

Yeah, okay.

We've been waiting
for this moment a long time

and nobody's seen the skull
since... what was it?

Since June 10 or June 8
or something like that

it's been sitting
in a closet in Morocco.

You never know
what kind of surprises, all right?

Including just picking it up,
making sure it got here.

We'll, you know...

keep our fingers crossed,
say 'Inshallah'.

Bouchra arrives in the care
of Dibble's Moroccan colleague,

Dr Abdel Ben'Sar.

Then our cameras attract
the attention of German officials.

With the authorities reassured
that it's just a human skull,

the team reunites.

The half-metre cube of Moroccan cave

has been brought to the world's
premier research facility

for human evolution -

the Max Planck Institute. Ah! There she is.

Bouchra seems
to have survived the trip.

Now she must be freed
from her plaster shell.

As the team prepares

word spreads among the Institute's
prestigious researchers.

Come on in.
Bouchra is a celebrity.

You do the honours. Abdel, you cut.

With all eyes focused on their work,
the team crosses their fingers,

hoping to at last catch a glimpse
of Bouchra's face.

After five days of patient scraping

Bouchra is finally re-emerging
from her protective plaster casing,

revealing fresh mysteries.

But what we seem to be missing
is a face.

Yeah, the face is kind of weird,
isn't it?

Yeah, we've got this big void.
Broken, broken.

After thousands of years
buried under one metre of dirt,

Bouchra's skull is crushed.

Looks like
there is a part of the face missing.

Think it's just
that all the face has been broken

and pieces have been moved,
one relatively to the others.

But the dentition
is absolutely outstanding.

It's amazing.

I think you should put glue on it.

Otherwise you have to start picking
those up as individual pieces.

There is little the archaeologists
can learn from it in this state.

Determining Bouchra's species
and what her life was like

will require cutting-edge technology.

Dibble is in the right place.

Bouchra's gonna be telling us
a lot more stuff.

The bones themselves
are gonna keep talking.

So we call it laser ablation
and we are trying to assess mobility

or migration pattern
of this individual.

Fragments of bone undergo preliminary
examination for trauma or disease.

And potentially the most important
test of all - genetic analysis.

We can answer a lot of questions
looking at DNA,

which archaeology usually,
or anthropology, cannot answer.

Her DNA could finally reveal
what species she is -

Homo sapien, Neanderthal

or perhaps even something
totally new.

That's extra-large...

But the results will be contaminated

if the scientists' own DNA
gets mixed in with Bouchra's.

What we're trying here now

is to avoid to bring
any contamination of human DNA

on the sample.

Modern tissue, you have millions
and millions of more DNA of course

than you might have
in an old sample.

From a warm environment,
like in Africa,

so far, actually nobody has found
DNA preservation

in those tropical regions.

So if there would be something
preserved in there,

that would be really amazing.

The test comes at great cost -

a two-and-a-half-centimetre piece
of priceless bone

will be destroyed in the process.

We have to get it out of there.

That's fine, that looks good.

Now that's DNA Central.

Just wonder how fragile it is?

No, I think
it's probably pretty good.

The next thing
is bring it into the clean room,

a really sterile room where no DNA,
modern DNA, usually gets brought in.

But when the results come back

they're a disappointment.

The tests are negative.

Bouchra's bones are too old.

They contain no DNA.

It was in bad shape.

We've tried lots
to get anything out of it.

The other test results trickle in.

The laser ablation of her teeth
doesn't reveal much either.

There's not enough data.

To learn more about Bouchra's life

or where she fits
on the human family tree,

the team will be limited
to more subjective

and time-consuming methods.

Their best chance
is to compare her face

to other known examples
of early humanity.

But to do that

they must put the entire,
jumbled pile of skull fragments

back into its original shape,

which means
completely removing the pieces

from their protective casing
of dirt and plaster.

That's the part
that's scaring me the most.

We're gonna try to keep it whole
and I dunno how to do that.

Causing further damage
to Bouchra's crumbling skull

is a very real possibility.

To prepare for CT scanning
means to wrap the object

so that it will be stable
during the scan.

Then we will wrap it up,
then tilt it.

And hope. It will work!

As a precaution, Dibble's team
takes a CT scan of the entire block,

digitally preserving
the skull fragments

exactly as they existed
in the cave floor in Morocco.

The X-rays reveal
over 100 individual pieces,

some no larger than a fingernail. With the CT scan finished,

Bouchra will now be handed
to a pair of trained specialists

known as conservators.

Their steady hands will be the ones

to physically pull
the delicate pieces from the dirt,

clean each one
and then attempt to reassemble them

into their original form.

The tenuous process
will take months...

or longer.

Other prehistoric skulls
have taken as long as eight years

to clean and reassemble.

It's possible that Dibble won't see
Bouchra's face any time this decade.

Over 6000 kilometres away

the artist Viktor Deak
doesn't want to wait that long.

He's attempting to shortcut
the conservators' process

using an unorthodox
but promising new method - his art.

For the scientists,
the CT scan was only a precaution.

But Deak sees it as raw materials.

He's imported the data
into a 3D modelling program

normally used for graphics
and animation.

This is the original CT scan
as Max Planck sent it over to me.

Once I can take this apart
in virtual space,

I can then reposition the pieces
to how it would look

before it was crushed and destroyed.

But working from X-rays rather
than the original has limitations.

What is that? Is that vertebrae?
Is it neck vertebrae?

This is one of the real problems
with looking at a CT scan

is some of this material you might
see better and clearer in reality.

There are some who think
Deak is wasting his time,

including the director
of the Max Planck Institute,

Jean-Jacques Hublin.

I'm pessimistic.

The condition of the first scanning

was such that it looks to me
an almost impossible challenge

to make a reconstruction
of the skull.

Hublin believes

only the old-fashioned,
hands-on reconstruction

of the actual bone fragments

will be exact enough
for scientific analysis.

But even as the conservators
in Leipzig

are cleaning off slivers of bone,

Viktor, in just a few weeks,

has pieced the scan data
into a finished skull.

Skin, hair and eyes will come later

but he can already tell

that Bouchra's face
is like none he's seen before.

It's not a Homo erectus.
It's not a Neanderthal.

But where exactly, chronologically
and evolutionarily speaking, it fits

is still very questionable.

He's captured a time-lapse
of his new process

so Dibble and Hublin
can verify his methods

or point out his mistakes.

Now comes the nerve-wracking part.

He's going to Germany

to show his work to the toughest
audience imaginable -

his biggest doubters, and the people
who know Bouchra best.

Check out these great value
Father's Day gift ideas, all under $20. 2-piece plier set, only $19.98. Matador barbecue tool set, $16.99. Irwin builders toolbag, just $15. SONG: # Bunnings Warehouse! # Lowest prices
are just the beginning.

Hey, babe,
I could really go for a snack. Yeah.

Ow! Damn it!

Get in the bowl. M&M: YOU get in the bowl. (M&Ms POUR INTO BOWL)

Viktor Deak has spent nearly a month
on his digital reconstruction

of a child's skull
from over 100,000 years ago.

I'm just excited and nervous

about the reaction
by the people at Max Planck.

Just because I have a certain sense
of pride and a connection now.

I only hope they like what I did.

The bones themselves are still
being extracted and cleaned.

The physical reconstruction
won't be carried out for some time.

Some of the scientists

doubt Viktor's model
will be a useful proxy

in their efforts find out
what sort of child Bouchra was.

A modern Homo sapien? Neanderthal?

Or something else?
Something in between?

Deak arrives early and asks if he
is allowed to see the actual bones.

Until now
he has seen only CT scans.

The CT scan is identical,
virtually identical to it,

but there's a level of detail that
I haven't seen yet on that CT scan.

He sees a few details in the bones

he hadn't noted in the CT scan
back in New York.

You just can't appreciate
what you've really got

until you see it like this.

But all too quickly
the archaeological team arrives,

eager to review his work.

Hey, Viktor.
How are you?

It's gonna be interesting
to see what you got, so...

Viktor loads up the video
of his process and presses "Play".

(Laugh quietly)

It's amazing.

I would like to have it.
It's fantastic, isn't it?

I like this one.

I'm very pleased now.
I'm very happy.

I was a bit, I was a bit nervous,
you know, presenting.

I must say,
I was a little bit sceptical.

It looked to me like
it was a bit too premature somehow.

But I'm amazed
by what you have done.

To see how you got...

Even the conservators,

who are painstakingly re-assembling
the physical skull fragments,

can see the value
in Viktor's digital approach.

This is so impressive. I can't
imagine doing this the old way.

I guess we're gonna see
what happens the old way? (Laughs)

Viktor's experimental technique
has paid off.

The team has a first glimpse

of just how physically modern
Bouchra really is.

It has a modern face
in the sense that it's a flat face,

like a modern face,

very different
from a Neanderthal, for example.

I found I was very surprised by it

because, to have very primitive
features in that maxillary region

and even the jaw

but the rest of the face
is a Homo sapien, early human.

So it's a very unique-looking skull.

This very... large face,

strong dentition,

but very modern-like,
very modern-like.

Bouchra lived at the same time
as the Neanderthals

but it's now clear she shared
little in common with them.

Key anatomical features
such as her brain case and flat face

inform the experts that Bouchra
is a Homo sapien, like us.

But primitive features,
like her protruding jaw,

suggest she wasn't fully modern
like we are today.

The conservators
get back to their bone shards.

It will take months, or more,

to see if their reconstruction
confirms Viktor's results.

Viktor heads home to begin
the next step in his process.

Using his digital reconstruction
as a blueprint,

he'll sculpt a life-size model
out of Plasticine.

I'm really excited
to finally start throwing clay.

It's a departure into the real
world now from that virtual world.

Only when this is done can he begin
adding flesh, hair and eyes

to complete Bouchra's unique face,

with its primitive jawline
and modern cranium.

Meanwhile, Jean-Jacques Hublin

is eager to take a deeper look
at Bouchra's jawbone and tiny teeth.

And this one
is an incredible gift of destiny

because children are very important,
very interesting,

because they tell us something

and the development of humans.

During childhood
our teeth are constantly growing.

Each day, a new layer of enamel
is laid down.

A little bit
like the trunk of a tree,

you can find rings
and you can count

not years,
but you can count weeks and days.

By counting the rings,

Hublin can calculate exactly
how old the child was at death.

Comparing that age
to other developmental markers

indicates the rate of growth,

how long it takes
for a baby to become an adult.

One of the things
that separates humans

from our closest ape relatives

is how much time
it takes us to develop.

People have sort of looked
at this issue of development

and what it says about being human
for quite some time.

Modern children
are not mentally or physically adult

until at least age 18.

Most other animals reach adulthood
in just a few years.

Chimps are fully mature by age 10,
roughly half the time it takes us.

And Neanderthals reached maturity
as early as age 13,

ready to face the world a full five
years ahead of Homo sapiens.

There is many possible explanations
for that.

One explanation
is that we have a very big brain

and it's a complex organ
to organise somehow.

In a dangerous prehistoric world

one would think
it's an advantage to grow big, fast.

Yet somehow Neanderthals went extinct

while our species and our
slow-maturing children survived.

A leading theory

is that the intellect developed
during this long childhood

is what gave us
the evolutionary edge.

It's a very important issue

because how fast you grow
is not just a biological issue,

it has implications
on how long you can learn things

and how
the whole society's organised

because having individuals
coming to reproduction

not at 18 or 20
but at 14 or 15

makes a society
completely different, of course.

Bouchra was young when she died -
six to eight years old.

But in her immature teeth and jaw

Hublin sees similarities
to modern development patterns.

And now that we have separated

from the skull,

what we see is that it's really

almost exactly
the same stage of development.

It suggests that Bouchra did not
grow up fast, like Neanderthals,

but slowly, like us.

She apparently had 12 to 14
more years of growing up to do

when she died.

If her body was developing slowly,
like a modern Homo sapien,

perhaps her mind -
her way of thinking - was modern too.

It's a tantalising possibility.

But how in the world
do you study the mind

of a child who died
108,000 years ago?

If you want to find
great deals on hardware...

Go where the tradies go. VOICEOVER: Great gifts for dad. Bosch 18V drill driver set, $139. Tool chest with trolley, just $79. Go where the tradies go -
Home Timber & Hardware.

Permanent won 'Money'
magazine's Home Lender of the Year because we can smash just about any home loan offer in Australia. In fact, our... one of the lowest in the country at 4.39% per annum. But it's more than just a low rate. It has no ongoing fees. And for a limited time, there is no establishment fee on this loan, or any of our home loans. So see how much you could save when you switch to the
home loan

Viktor Deak has finished his clay
sculpture of Bouchra's skull.

He calls on his mentor,

Dr Ian Tattersall of the American
Museum of Natural History,

to verify the assumptions he's made.

To keep the accuracy, I came up
with this sort of chart system

and it basically allows me
to measure

with callipers
or whatever instruments,

point A and point B.

Yeah, this is very intriguing.

This is not exactly
your standard-issue Homo sapien.

Right, it's this very interesting
face, and very mixed,

with very primitive features
and some very modern attributes...

Oh, absolutely. My only question
really lies in that nasal opening.

Looks a little different
from what I might have expected.

In the CT, that's exactly a spot
that's really missing.

And I think you've come up
with a pretty good compromise.


It's just amazing
that you can even do this. (Laughs)

This is something
a little bit different

from what anybody has seen,
I think.

Confident that he's made
the most accurate skull possible,

Deak makes a mould of the soft clay
and casts it in plastic.

He's now ready to put flesh
on her bones.

For this next step

Viktor seeks advice
from another long-time collaborator,

Dr Samuel Marquez, a director

at the State University of New York
Downstate Medical Center

and an expert in gross anatomy.

Anatomists can only tell you

the anatomically correct
muscle attachments.

What Viktor brings to the table
is his gifted insight

into bringing that anatomy alive
in his artistic point of view.

Deak has come here

to examine the faces
of Dr Marquez's medical cadavers.

What I would like to do would be to
maybe do a half-dissection,

so that we can have a basis
of looking at one half of the face

versus the other half.

Yeah, wow!
Even here it's very thick.

You think that the bone
is right underneath the skin

but in actuality is a load
of soft-tissue structures...

That's compressional
but this is what I'm trying to gauge

so that I don't make it too thin
in Bouchra.

When conservators reassemble a skull
they are dealing with hard facts,

what they can see and hold.

This phase of Viktor Deak's work
is more interpretive,

demanding detailed understanding of
how soft tissue sits on top of bone.

Whereas in most
of the rest of the body

the body fat generally sits over
on top of the muscle tissue.

But in the face, everything is woven
in, to the point of the skin.

Like, you know, a marionette,

but with millions of strings,
not just six or seven.

With the complex interplay of facial
tissue and muscle fresh in his mind,

Viktor returns to work.

Bouchra's face is taking shape.

More than 6000 kilometres away

Dr Harold Dibble
is trying to determine

if the mind hidden in her unique
skull was wired like ours

because it's the way we think

that makes us modern Homo sapiens
different from all other species.

It's evident in how we communicate,
engage in trade,

even dress ourselves.

Clear indications
of modern thinking -

rituals, language, and art -

have been found
among prehistoric Homo sapiens sites

dating back
tens of thousands of years.

But the farther we go back in time

the thinner
the physical evidence gets.

There are scattered examples of
jewellery, carvings, ritual burials.

But beyond 100,000 years

we find little more
than functional stone tools -

scant evidence that we acted
any different than Neanderthals.

Bouchra lived and died
as this dark era was ending

about 108,000 years ago,

a time when early Homo sapiens
seem to have been changing

physically and mentally,
from archaic to modern.

Bouchra's face is clearly modern.

But is there any tangible proof
that her mind was modern as well?

The team must look for any evidence

of art, religion, or complex thought
left by her people.

When Bouchra's skull and upper torso
were found

in the dirt floor
of Smuggler's Cave in Morocco,

it wasn't clear
if she was buried intentionally

or simply left there

until the team uncovered this.

You see
how it's a little bit blacker there?

It doesn't have the colour
of some of these other bones.

Compare that. That's unburnt.

Small fragments of bone

extracted from the sediment
around Bouchra's skull

appear to have been burned,
as if her body was placed in a fire.

We have the ash here,
which is why we're thinking

it's really associated with some
sort of combustion feature.

Isn't that interesting?

It's the first time we've seen this,
we've got some fragments of bone,

of the human bone
that show signs of burning.

Yeah, that's very exciting.

This could be evidence of an ancient
cremation - a ritual burial,

a quintessentially modern,
symbolic act.

If this were proven to be a burial
it would be significant

because burials
are extremely rare anyway

and in this time period
they're mostly non-existent.

This could be
the earliest burial we have.

The evidence is compelling
but incomplete.

The only way to learn more
about Bouchra and her people

is to return to Morocco.

Dibble must resume excavating

if he's going to finally determine
who Bouchra really was.

It's been nearly a month

since Dibble's team re-opened the
hot, dusty cave to continue digging.

They're looking for any sign

that Bouchra's body
was buried in a ritual manner -

a behaviour exhibited exclusively
by us, modern Homo sapiens.

It would prove that Bouchra's people
had advanced symbolic thinking

and totally overhaul what we know
about the pre-history of modern man.

Vera Aldeias is a geoarchaeologist

brought in to examine the sediments
where Bouchra was found.

Are these ashes that we've got here?
We think so.

What looks to be ashy sediments
all around the skull surface.

The use of fire
is well over a million years old.

So on its own
it's not a sign of modernity.

But if this fire was built
to ritually dispose

of Bouchra's remains,

it would be the earliest
cremation ceremony yet uncovered.

She was right about here

and we also had some other burnt
bones in very close proximity.

But it's so widespread we cannot
distinguish if it's one fire event

or several of them
within the same surface.

So that's pretty much
the problem we have.

The hunt for evidence that Bouchra
was cremated is a dead end.

We still have no evidence of
a grave that was deliberately dug,

so basically we still don't have
any positive indication

that we've got a ritual burial here.

It doesn't seem to be indication
of anything abnormal

or a ritual position of the body.

We don't see anything like that.

The only conclusion we can reach
is that the body was left here.

Then soon afterward some animals
came in, as they do,

and in effect scavenged
part of the body.

Bouchra wasn't buried,
she was abandoned.

But why?

The discovery is both a setback
and a puzzle.

But other research
is being pursued simultaneously

in hopes of learning more about
Bouchra's life and final moments.

Emily Hallett
of Arizona State University

has been tasked with sorting through

bone found in Bouchra's layer so far.

Whatcha got?

So right here we have
the proximal radius of a cow.

Hallett has found
the scraps of a prehistoric dinner.

And on it we can see
a hammer stone percussion mark.

Right along here.
So they're breaking that up.

Right, they were breaking it
for marrow extraction

because marrow is really rich
in nutrients and fats

and it's a great resource.

These bones show cut marks,

indicating the animals were killed
and butchered with stone tools.

They also show no sign
of animal tooth marks.

It means that Bouchra's people
weren't scavengers

scrounging leftovers
from large predators.

They were the hunters.

The bones tell us what people were
eating, what they were hunting.

And the second thing they tell us
is something about the environment.

When we can identify
a bone to species

we can say "Okay,

"this species of gazelle
lives in a grassland environment."

Bouchra's people would find
few gazelles to hunt

around the cave today.

And not just because
of the urban landscape.

It's a problem of geography.

Travel inland a few dozen kilometres
and the land dries out,

eventually giving way to desert -
the Sahara.

It effectively isolates
this corner of Africa

from the rest of the continent.

But in Bouchra's day
the landscape was quite different.

The Sahara may exist...

Nick Drake is a geographer
at King's College London.

Okay, so I'm trying to explain

how the Sahara might've been green
in the past.

For the past 10 years

he has been poring over NASA
satellite images of the Sahara

and has found evidence
of rolling green savannahs

surrounding long-vanished lakes,

some larger than the United Kingdom
and Ireland combined.

These giant lakes
have a lot of wave action,

which produce really quite stark
and obvious shore lines.

Our results of dating these lakes
are that we get,

the most probable
is about 110,000 years ago,

which I think fits quite well

with the age of the skull
you found in the cave in Morocco.

Drake then superimposed a map

of all the Homo sapiens sites
found in the region

that date back to the broad period
when Bouchra was alive.

The two maps lined up,

revealing what could have been
Stone Age migration routes.

Instead of being cut off
by the desert,

Bouchra's people may have migrated
all over Africa.

So we've got another corridor here,

which would allow you to migrate
back and forth.

East, west, north, south.
Highly mobile, huh?

They're really getting around.

Drake's findings may explain

why Bouchra's body was abandoned
for scavengers to find.

Her people
weren't permanent residents.

Evidence inside the cave

backs up the theory
that they were hunter-gatherers

who went wherever the food was,
be it land or sea.

So for the first time
in human evolution

we start to see people
exploiting the best of both worlds.

The beach is that way,
the grasslands are that way

and there's a converging
here in the middle.

They were frequenting the coast

and picking up things like mussels
and molluscs and limpets

then taking the meat out from them
and leaving the shells at the site.

From about two and a half million
years ago

people started eating meat
on a regular basis.

And it wasn't until
about 100,000 years ago

to about 110,000 years ago

that we start to see humans
exploiting these marine resources.

This is one of
the first instances

of people going to the ocean
to collect resources.

Many scientists believe Neanderthals
never ate seafood.

If Bouchra's people
were eating shellfish,

it suggests they were starting
to act like moderns.

But it's the only sign Dibble has.

It's not enough to prove that Bouchra
had a complex brain like we do.

While Dibble continues scouring
the Moroccan soil for clues,

Viktor is ready to build her face.

So it's a lot like sculpting
a portrait of somebody.

But we're sculpting their portrait
from the architecture out.

It's in this facial architecture

that Viktor thinks he may have made
a small discovery of his own.

Bouchra's skull
has a slightly different shape

than initially thought.

It means adjusting the final model
in a small but significant way.

Viktor will have a little surprise
for everyone

when Bouchra's face
is finally revealed.

Two all-beef patties,
special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions,
on a sesame seed bun. (THUD) ALL: Two all-beef patties,
special sauce... ..lettuce, cheese,
pickles, onions... ..on a sesame seed bun.
(MEOWS) (GURGLING) Two all-beef patties,
special sauce... ..lettuce, cheese... (SINGS) # ..pickles, onions,
on a sesame seed bun. # VOICEOVER: The Big Mac Chant. Upload yours at and you could win the ultimate
overseas holiday. Plus get a free Big Mac
just for voting.

Dibble's team still has no evidence
that Bouchra had modern thought.

But they've just found a major clue.

They keep finding the remains
of odd dime-sized molluscs.

Clearly they're too small to eat.
Definitely not eaten.

There's no resources inside.

They're sea snails from tidal pools

that were as far as 10 kilometres
away in Bouchra's time.

What's interesting is people
have to be carrying them away

from the beach
to the cave where we are today.

They weren't food
but they were used for something.

Many of the shells
have been punctured.

We have a hole here
and then another one right in here.

We don't see anything like this
prior to around Bouchra's age.

And one of the big questions

is whether or not people
were piercing through the shell

and then stringing them together
to make perhaps a necklace.

The practice of decorating oneself
is in some way symbolic.

It tells other individuals

how affluent you are
or what group you belong to.

It's symbolic of something.

And it's fairly widely accepted

to be part of what makes the way
that we think and we behave

different from the way
that anything else does.

No other species,
not even Neanderthals,

have been found with convincing
examples of beads or jewellery.

But the holes alone
aren't enough to prove

these shells were used
as ornamentation.

Shells do get holes in them.

Some of the holes
we see are natural holes as well.

So how do we really prove that
they were being picked up by people,

worn by people and such like that?

Even if ancient Homo sapiens
weren't eating the snails,

there are plenty of other animals
that likely were.

It's nearly impossible
to tell the difference

between natural
and man-made punctures

unless you're extremely thorough
in your study of shell beads.

Dr Esteban Alvarez
is an archaeozoologist

specialising in ancient shells.

Okay, let's see what you got.
This is my experiment.

What do you have?
Oh, you're wearing them.

This is great.

Experimental archaeology,
he lives it. (Laughs)

For months, Alvarez has worn
a necklace and bracelet

made of the same species of shells
found in Bouchra's cave.

And you say after two months

Yes, there is some use wear,
of course.

You can see here on the holes,
the use wear pattern.

You're picking up the edges
are softened and rounded on those?

Under the microscope
the marks on Alvarez's shells

are a perfect match for the wear
patterns on the ancient ones.

This pattern
couldn't have occurred naturally.

No, it's not naturally.

No, it's clear that the perforations
on the shells are made by humans.

It suggests that Bouchra's people
used the shells as jewellery.

And man, it's striking.

It's showing us
the earliest representations

of the kinds of behaviours that
we associate with modern humans.

And from what I see
from the evidence here

there's no question
that Bouchra's a modern person

and that the kind of behaviour
you see is modern as well.

Bouchra was one of us.

After many months in the field
Dibble is ready to return home.

But before he does
there is just one more stop to make.

Hey, Viktor, how are you?
Good to see ya.

Thanks for coming.

Excited to show you...
Man, you looking to get a head, huh?

I am.
I love that joke but...

After 15 months studying Bouchra

Harold Dibble will finally get
to look her in the eye.

Jean-Jacques Hublin joins via video
conference from a dig site in France.

Okay, we can see you.

You see me?

Hi, JJ. How are you?

I'm very anxious to see
what's under here.

Viktor hasn't yet told
Dibble or Hublin

about the changes
he made to the model.

I'm so nervous.

Here is the reconstruction

And here we go.
Drum roll, please.


Oh, that's very nice, Viktor!

As it turns out,
Bouchra may have been a boy!

You're terrific!

Over weeks of working on his model

Viktor noticed subtle details
in the skull

that Hublin and Dibble
couldn't yet study

with the real bone fragments
still being reassembled.

He believes the skull lacks

the characteristic flaring
of the forehead known as bossing,

found only in women.

And this doesn't seem to have
that strong of bossing on it.

No, I am really impressed
and I must say I like it very much.

Great, I'm very relieved.

It's going to be impossible to look

at any artefact
coming from this site

without having this picture in mind.

In the end though, boy or girl,
Bouchra still means good news.

I think either way what we're
looking at is a young individual -

kids are kids -
from a long time ago.

And I think
there is where the story is.

Bouchra gives us our first glimpse

at the face
of a modern homo sapien child

during a formative time
for our species.

It's a crucial, I would say...

landmark in our evolution.

It gives us a picture of the humans
who lived in Africa,

who at some point left Africa
to colonise the rest of the world.

I think that's where Bouchra
really fits in really beautifully,

is that it is sort of just like this
one minute before us, you know?

A lost child, he now returns to us.

And through him
we can now see more clearly

the path that brought
all of us here today.

Captions (c) SBS Australia 2013

Hello. Making news tonight. Tony Abbott has launched the coalition's election campaign, tagged as "no surprises, no excuses". Demand is growing for Syria to allow in UN inspectors, following the alleged chemical attack. Meantime, HMAS Melbourne has left Sydney, on its way back to the Middle East, with its crew ready to respond.

Good evening and welcome to The Observer Effect - viewing the events of the week through the eyes of the people who shape Australia. Tonight, Immigration Minister Tony Burke reveals a human side of the asylum seeker debate. And Father Bob Maguire talks about finding Jesus under his bed.

The Minister for Immigration, Tony Burke, is a man who knows how to sell an argument. He started at the age of 12, when he won better pay and conditions for the boys and girls on his newspaper round and, 30 years on, Tony Burke's still at it now in the hottest of hot seats, arguing the Government's case on asylum seeker policy. He must wish it was as simple as getting another few dollars a week for delivering those newspapers. Tony Burke, welcome to The Observer Effect. Thanks for being my guest.A real pleasure to be here.What happened on the newspaper round? Solidarity forever, picket lines?It was outrageous. We had a situation where all the other paper shops around Beverly Hills were paying 12.5% commission.And how much was this young chap getting?Looks like a union thug, doesn't he? We were on 10%.Oh.And so I said to the other paper boys, "Let's form a union" and went to the boss with our list of demands and the boss said, "Well no, you haven't paid union fees. You're not a real union." So I went back, everyone threw in a copper coin, one and two cent piece, said, "No, we've got our union fees, we've got our demands." He was sort of playing along. "What are they?" I said, "We want 12.5% commission, we want free food for a Christmas party and we want you to pay us an extra dollar every time it rains" and he responded with, "Well, why should I give you that?" And I said, "Well, if you don't we're going to run a paper boy picket line out the front of the shop and the media will come because they will think it's really funny. We'll be on TV and we'll feel fantastic and everyone will know it's your shop and you'll look really bad." And so within about three minutes we had 12.5% commission, extra dollar every time it rained and the free food organised for the Christmas party. So then we celebrated by spending the union fees on mixed lollies. And what did that teach you about the power of media exposure, or perhaps standover tactics, which one?In terms of standover, we were little.Stand under.That's right. But it was... Look, at the time I remember being scared, I remember being nervous about having that conversation with someone who was your boss. But it was also this concept of if you stick together, you can deliver, you can deliver things.Look, you're better known for being the Immigration Minister than the Arts Minister but there was a time in Australia's history when being the Minister for the Arts meant that you had a very high profile indeed.Ladies and gentlemen, it's very good to be here on the Parky show. You know, you could say this is the international year of Australia already, couldn't you, Mike?You could.It's been fantastic the publicity we're getting and largely due to the efforts of my good self. You know, it wasn't many moons ago that they thought we were a bunch of rough diamonds down here but, you know, we've got more culture than a penicillin factory in Australia.Now, I've got to ask you, you've only been in the portfolio for a short time, but could you ever hope to have the impact of Sir Les in the portfolio? I suspect not, although I dreamed of having that portfolio for years. Why?Well, I guess two things. I'd always been very much involved, whether it be, you know, guitar, piano, drama, poetry, different things that I've been passionate about but I never thought I'd get it because I came into parliament the same time Peter Garrett did. Right.So with a passion for the environment and the arts I thought nope, gone, never get there. And then after the 2010 election I asked for everything that was in the Environment Department that didn't name the arts because I thought I'd just get it anyway and at that moment it was taken to a different department.Oh no.So it was only by chance when Simon Crean was no longer a minister earlier on this year that it became available, and I must have made five or six calls through to Julia Gillard's office.Did you beg?I begged, yeah. That was completely unashamed and in the end her chief of staff rang me and said, "Tony, the message is this. Tell Burky to stop hassling me, he's getting it." And that was it.One of the literary figures that caught your imagination as a kid was Atticus Finch, played here by Gregory Peck in this classic courtroom scene from 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. The evil assumption that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women. An assumption that one associates with minds of their calibre and which is in itself, gentlemen, a lie which I do not need to point out to you.

need to point out to you.
And so he had something of a tough brief for the era, didn't he? He was defending a black man accused of raping a white woman. Why is that figure important to you? There's a line that's used twice in the novel and used differently each time. One is "If you want to understand someone, you've got to get into their shoes and walk around in them" and I think it's later referred to as getting into their skin and walk around in it. Scout doesn't remember the quote accurately as it's referred to the second time. But that's basically been how I've tried to do my job. A lot's made of the personal background of members of Parliament, as though whatever we've done personally in life, whatever career we've chosen, will then match what sort of Member of Parliament we end up becoming. I actually think it's the worst model to use because if we go there and we only intend to base it on our own life experience, what happens to the rest of the country? And what I think Atticus Finch, the character, nails, is the concept - this is why when I had a small business we named it Atticus - that if you actually want to understand where people are coming from, you've got to understand their perspective and, you know, that's why when I became Agriculture Minister, you know, there's not a lot of farming going on in my part of Sydney and if there is the police should be called in. But the concept that I took on was just to be upfront. I don't have an agricultural background. My, you know, a couple of generations ago they moved to the city and the thing that I said I wanted to do was to walk in their shoes. I spent ages on farms, ages out there in the community. When I became Environment Minister I spent a whole lot of time in kayaks that I love and out in some of the areas that we're looking to protect, camping out with traditional owners, and if you're not willing to understand the world from the perspective of the rest of Australia, I think you will always be caught by the limitations of one person's lifetime.And yet Atticus Finch is this figure overwhelming of a kind of towering morality, isn't he? Of absolute adherence to principle, and I find it curious that when you went into Parliament, the figure that you were attracted