THOMAS QUARRY (Rabat)
LOCATION
Quarry complex 8 km SW of Casablanca, Morocco.
DISCOVERY
P. Beriro, April 1969 (Thomas 1); 1972 (Thomas 2).
MATERIAL
Left mandibular ramus with four teeth (Thomas 1);
several calotte fragments and left partial maxilla
(Thomas 2).
DATING AND STRATIGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The hominid remains were recovered from Quarries I
and 111 of the Thomas complex: Thomas 1 from a fis-
sure fill in Quarry I and Thomas 2 from the floor of a
small cave filled with calcite concretions. All are be-
lieved to be of about the same age (Geraads, 1980).
The studies of Jaeger (1975) on the rodents and of
Geraads (1980) and Geraads et al. (1980) on the
overall fauna suggest that the Thomas hominids are
equivalent in age to the hominid level at the neigh-
boring site of Sidi Abderrahman. Both sites are
believed to equate with the Anfatian marine trans-
gression, which has been correlated to ca. 400 Ka
(Jaeger, quoted in Hublin, 1985).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Both the Thomas I and 111 quarries have yielded
lithics of Acheulean type (Geraads et al., 1980).PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES
Ennouchi (1969, 1972) referred to the Thomas 1 and
2 fossils as Atlanthropus mauritanicus, thereby empha-
sizing similarities between Thomas 1 and the
Tighenif lower jaws. As with the latter, most subse-
quent commentators have preferred to assign the
Thomas Quarry hominids to Homo erectus (e.g., Ger-
aads et al., 1980; Rightmire, 1990). However, Hublin
(1985) pointed to the difficulties involved in main-
taining Homo erectus as a meaningful taxon if the
North African Middle Pleistocene hominids are to
be included in it. Schwartz and Tattersall (2000: 400)
have commented that “although taxonomic allocation
of this specimen is uncertain, it clearly is not H. sapi-
ens or a variation on [Qafzeh, Skh~l, or European
hominids] .”MORPHOLOGY
Several cranial fragments (1972-1976), plus left max-
illary fragment with 12-M2 (1972-1974), and partial
mandible with LMl-12, RI1, part of P2, and M3
erupting (1972-1975).Cranial Fragments
Identifiable cranial bits include part of occiput, with
part of internal occipital protuberance, and sagittal
sinus running more markedly to larger R than to
weaker L transverse sinus. Externally, surface weath-
ered. No gross indications of morphology, but good
s/i curvature to bone, which is moderately thick.
Fragments of parietal uninformative.291