https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4639-4848
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The article aims to examine the deceitful practices employed by traders in the eastern Mediterranean. It investigates three principal types of deception that Italian merchants in the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia and in Cyprus used in order to conceal prohibited products and their routes to Mamlūk ports between 1260 and 1310. The papacy issued several decrees that prohibited Christian merchants from trading in various strategic items, such as timber, iron and slaves, in the harbours of Islamic states. However, despite these bans, Christian merchants continued trading in such items by devising methods to conceal this traffic. Current literature has so far focused on the items that were shipped across the eastern Mediterranean and their destinations; however, there is a gap in knowledge about who these merchants were and the methods they used to circumvent the prohibitions while shipping the goods. This research aims to fill this gap by answering questions about the conditions of the trade and the covert methods used for the transportation of prohibited goods to Mamlūk ports.
Acknowledgements
This study has been generously supported by Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Center for Mediterranean Civilizations – AKMED at Koç University, so I would like to express my endless gratitude to them. In addition, I am particularly grateful to Ömer Fatih Parlak and Nicholas Coureas for their critical reading, fruitful suggestions and comments. The responsibility for possible remaining errors is mine.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Shelomo D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p. 332.
2 On the origin and use of the embargo, see Stefan K. Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality: Papal Embargo as Cultural Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 2–3.
3 David Jacoby, “The Supply of War Materials to Egypt in the Crusader Period”, in idem, Commercial Exchange across the Mediterranean: Byzantium, the Crusader Levant, Egypt and Italy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), II, p. 112; Sophia Menache, “Papal Attempts at a Commercial Boycott of the Muslims in the Crusader Period”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63/2 (2012): 236–59, pp. 247, 252.
4 Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 102–32; Nicholas Coureas, “Western Merchants and the Ports of Cyprus up to 1291”, in Proceeding of the International Symposium Cyprus and the Sea, ed. V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides (Nicosia, 1995), pp. 255–62; idem, “Latin Cyprus and Its Relations with the Mamluk Sultanate, 1250–1517”, in The Crusader World, ed. Adrian J. Boas (London: Routledge, 2016), pp. 391–418.
5 David Jacoby, “The Economy of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia: Some Neglected and Overlooked Aspects”, in La Méditerranée des Arméniens XIIe–XVe siècle, ed. Claude Mutafian (Paris: Geuther, 2014), pp. 261–91.
6 Nicholas Coureas, “Controlled Contacts: The Papacy, the Latin Church of Cyprus and Mamluk Egypt, 1250–1350”, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras, ed. Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), pp. 395–408; idem, “Lusignan Cyprus and Lesser Armenia, 1195–1375”, Epeteris Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon 21 (1995): 33–71; idem, “Genoese Merchants and the Export of Grain from Cyprus of Cilician Armenia: 1300–1310”, Hask Armenological Yearbook 11 (2009): 1–20.
7 Eliyahu Ashtor, Levant Trade in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 3–63.
8 Scott Redford, “Trade and Economy in Antioch and Cilicia in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries”, in Trade and Markets in Byzantium, ed. Cecile Morrisson (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2012), pp. 297–309.
9 Jean Richard, “Le royaume de Chypre et l’embargo sur le commerce avec l’Égypte (fin XIIIe–début XIVe siècle)”, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 128/1 (1984): 120–34.
10 Damien Coulon, “The Commercial Influence of the Crown of Aragon in the Eastern Mediterranean (Thirteenth–Fifteenth Centuries)”, in The Crown of Aragon A Singular Mediterranean Empire, ed. Flocel Sabaté (Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. 279–308, esp. 286–9.
11 Benjamin Arbel, “Slave Trade and Slave Labor in Frankish and Venetian Cyprus”, in idem, Cyprus, the Franks and Venice, 13th–16th Centuries IX (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), pp. 151–173
12 Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality, 1–7.
13 Slaves, as one of the strategic items, were predominantly supplied from the Black Sea region with the help of Italian merchants so, in the thirteenth century, the Mamlūks did not refrain from diplomatic relations with Byzantium, the Golden Horde and the Genoese. For more information about the Black Sea slave trade, see Andrew Ehrenkreutz, “Strategic Implications of the Slave Trade between Genoa and Mamluk Egypt in the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century”, in The Islamic Middle East 700-1900, ed. A.L. Udovitch (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1981), pp. 335–45; Hannah Barker, That Most Precious Merchandise: The Mediterranean Trade in Black Sea Slaves, 1260–1500 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019). Apart from the Black Sea region, the Aegean was also important for supplying slaves. For more information, see Mike Carr, Merchant Crusaders in the Aegean, 1291–1352 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015), pp. 55–62.
14 Nicholas Coureas, “The Structure and Content of the Notarial Deeds of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni da Rocha, 1296–1310”, in Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000-1500: Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication, ed. Alexander D. Beihammer, Maria G. Parani and Christopher D. Schabel (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 223–34, esp. 223; Jacoby, “Economy of the Armenian Kingdom”, 269.
15 The Mamlūk sultans signed various agreements with the Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia, Italian city-states and the Outremer, as well as the Kingdom of Aragon and the military orders in the region occasionally. Trade in the region was particularly emphasised in the agreements made with Byzantium, the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia and the city-states and steps were taken not to hinder the merchants involved in mutual trade. For information about the diplomatic process and some of the texts of these treaties, see Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Tashrīf al-ayyām wa l-uṣūr fī sīrat al-malik al-Manṣūr, ed. Murād Kāmil (Cairo: Wizārat at-Thaqāfa wa-l-Irshād, 1961); idem, Al-rawḍ al-zāhir fī sīrat al-Malik al-Ẓāhir, ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Khuwayṭir (al-Riyāḍ: n.pub. 1976). The documents about the treaties are translated and published in Peter M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290): Treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian Rulers (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
16 Cinnamon, aloes, cassia, galbanum and ginger were some of these spices. Jacoby, “Economy of the Armenian Kingdom”, 265.
17 Maria P. Pedani, “Bahr-i Mamluk–Venetian Commercial Agreements”, in The Turks, volumes I–VI, ed. H.C. Güzel, C.C. Oguz, O. Karatay (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2002), II: 298–305; Tarek Torky, “Centre of the Spice Trade between East and West”, in Mamluk Art: The Splendour and Magic of the Sultans (Madrid: Museum with No Frontiers, 2001), pp. 196–7; Ehrenkreutz, “Strategic Implications”, 336, 337; Pierre Moukarzel, “Venetian Merchants in Thirteenth-Century Alexandria and the Sultans of Egypt: An Analysis of Treaties, Privileges and Intercultural Relations”, Al-Masāq 28/2 (2016): 187–205, p. 194.
18 David Jacoby, “The Rise of a New Emporium in the Eastern Mediterranean: Famagusta in the Late Thirteenth Century”, in idem, Studies on the Crusader States and Venetian Expansion, (Northampton: Variorum Reprints, 1989), VIII, p. 146; Peter Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades 1191–1374 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 6–8; Steven A. Epstein, Purity Lost: Transgressing Boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1000–1400 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 80.
19 Through the treaties, these city-states had some commercial privileges in the kingdom for their citizens. They owned funduqs for their accommodations and also for their goods, churches for their rituals and consulates. Jacoby, “Economy of the Armenian Kingdom”, 261–2, 280; Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 113, 124.
20 Angus Donal Stewart, The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks: War and Diplomacy during the Reigns of Het’um II (1289–1307) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 48–9, 54–6, 71–89, 106–7, 153–4, 160–5, 170–1; E. Honigmann, “Al-Maṣṣīsa”, in EI2, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs, volumes I–XII (Leiden: Brill, 1991), VI: 777; Peter Thorau, The Lion of Egypt: Sultan Baybars I and the Near East in the Thirteenth Century, trans. Peter M. Holt (New York: Longman, 1992), pp. 233–4; Linda S. Northrup, “The Bahri Mamluk Sultanate, 1250–1390”, in The Cambridge History of Egypt, volume I: Islamic Egypt, 640–1517, ed. Carl F. Petry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 242–89, esp. 279–80.
21 Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk–Ilkhanid War, 1260–1281 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 9; Faruk Sümer, “Kösedağ Savaşı”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 26 (2002), pp. 272–73.
22 Mike Carr, “Crossing Boundaries in the Mediterranean: Papal Trade Licences from the Registra Supplicationum of Pope Clement VI (1342–52)”, Journal of Medieval History 41/1 (2015): 107–29, pp. 107–8; Anthony Leopold, How to Recover the Holy Land: The Crusade Proposals of the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), pp. 119–20; Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality, 44–5; Menache, “Papal Attempts”, 238–9. For the various opinions on the first applied embargoes, see Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality, 17–40.
23 Gherardo Ortalli, “Venice and Papal Bans on Trade with the Levant: The Role of the Jurist”, in Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Benjamin Arbel (Portland: Frank Cass, 1996): 242–58, pp. 242–3; Menache, “Papal Attempts”, 243–4; Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality, 45. These decisions taken in Church councils were later applied to Baltic societies, Jews and other Christians outside the Catholic Church, who were seen as a threat and sometimes defined as pagan by the Church. Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality, 90–104.
24 Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 114.
25 Menache, “Papal Attempts”, 245.
26 Federico Visconti, Nicole Bériou and Isabelle Le Masne de Chermont, Les sermons et la visite pastorale de Federico Visconti Archeveque de Pise (1253–1277) (Rome: Ecole Française, 2001), pp. 1075–78; Angus D. Stewart, “The Armenian Kingdom and the Near East: Het‘um of Goṙigos and the ‘Flor des estoires de la terre d’Orient”, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras, ed. Urbain Vermeulen, Kristof d’Hulster, Jo Van Steenbergen (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), p. 525–48; Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality, 20–1.
27 Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 124–5.
28 Menache, “Papal Attempts”, 245; Ashtor, Levant Trade, 17.
29 Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 111–12, 115, 119.
30 Ortalli, “Venice and Papal Bans”, 246–7.
31 Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus, 134.
32 For the struggle of the Mamlūks with the regional powers and also the agreements they made, see Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Practising Diplomacy in the Mamluk Sultanate: Gifts and Material Culture in the Medieval Islamic World (London: I.B. Tauris, 2014), pp. 3–10.
33 Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 33, 44, 49, 62, 66, 73, 89, 95, 103, 109, 122, 132, 146, 147–51; Coureas, “Latin Cyprus”, 396.
34 Brenda M. Bolton, “A Matter of Great Confusion: King Richard I and Syria“s Vetus de Monte”, in Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000-1500: Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication, ed. Alexander D. Beihammer, Maria G. Parani and Christopher D. Schabel (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 171–203; Coureas, “Structure and Content”.
35 On the use of the beams in shipbuilding and their various lengths and names in notarial acts as barzena and barcinarii in the 1270s, see Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 120.
36 Notai genovesi in oltremare: Atti rogati a Laiazzo da Federico di Piazzalunga (1274) e Pietro di Bargone (1277, 1279), ed. Laura Balletto [Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, volume 53] (Genoa: Università di Genova, Istituto di Medievistica, 1989) [hereafter FdP CSFS53 and PdB CSFS53], no. 27.
37 FdP CSFS53, no. 49, pp. 72–3. For more evidence about the trade in beams to Egyptian ports by entrepreneurs and their partners, see ibid., nos. 60, 61, 91.
38 Ibid., no. 50.
39 Ibid., no. 106.
40 Ibid., no. 32.
41 Ibid., no. 94. Unlike the previous acts, this one clearly describes the trade (accomendatio / commenda) in which the two parties are collaborating on a profit-share basis.
42 Ibid., no. 33.
43 PdB CSFS53, no. 35.
44 Nicholas Coureas, “Economy”, in Cyprus: Society and Culture 1191–1374, ed. Angel Nicolaou-Konnari and Chris Schabel (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 103–56, esp. 105; Ashtor, Levant Trade, 38–9; Coureas, “Latin Cyprus”, 404.
45 The letter also mentions that Seguranus was in the service of the sultan, thus contributing to the power of the Muslims. William of Adam, How to Defeat the Saracens, text and translation with notes by Giles Constable et al. (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2012), pp. 32–35. It is also thought that Seguranus and other merchants working like him were taking advantage of the privileges that the Mamlūk Sultanate had in the territory of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, so they were protected from the threats in the region by acting under the auspices of the Mamlūks. In addition, the terms of the treaties and general information in contemporary Islamic, Latin and Syriac sources state that merchants would be allowed to supply timber, iron and slaves to the Mamlūks from the territory of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. For the terms of the treaties concluded in various periods and canons, see Ibn al-ʿIbrī, Taʾrīk̲h̲ muk̲h̲taṣar al-dūwal ed. Anṭūn Ṣāliḥānī (Beirut: 1890), p. 498; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Tashrīf al-ayyām, 98, 99–100; Visconti, Bériou and Le Masne de Chermont, Sermons, 1075–8.
46 It is understood in the treaties between the Mamlūk Sultanate and the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia that it was important not to prevent the slave trade and trade in other prohibited goods. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir’s texts mention that the king of Armenia should not hinder those who supplied male and female slaves, horses, mules and various goods needed for Mamlūk territories, no matter what society they belonged to. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Tashrīf al-ayyām, 100.
47 When the aforementioned notarial acts registered in Ayas were examined, the documents about slaves were found. However, these documents do not directly record slave trading to Mamlūk territories but only contain manumissions and records of local slave trading within the city. For documents about local slave trading and manumissions, see FdP CSFS53, nos. 13, 15, 43, 43a, 43b, 80; PdB CSFS53, nos. 45, 130. Nevertheless, all the documents about slavery were examined carefully as it was thought that a different slave trading method might have been applied to avoid the embargoes on suppling slaves to the Mamlūks. This situation and related examples will be discussed below under the subject of forbidden trade.
48 Notai genovesi in oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (6 luglio–27 ottobre 1301), ed. Romeo Pavoni [Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, volume 32] (Genoa: Università di Genova, Istituto di Medievistica, 1982) [hereafter LdS CSFS32], no. 148; Ahmet Usta, Slavery in Fourteenth Century Famagusta: The Evidence of the Genoese and Venetian Notarial Acts (Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic, 2012,) pp. 64–5.
49 FdP CSFS53, no. 11.
50 Ibid., no. 21.
51 Ibid., nos. 28, 29.
52 Ibid., no. 65.
53 Ibid., no. 58.
54 Ibid., no. 59.
55 Ibid., no. 88.
56 Ibid., no. 99. However, when notarial deeds are examined, it appears that this one was annulled when another document was prepared two days later. Ibid., no. 101.
57 Ibid., no. 104.
58 Ibid., no. 107.
59 For more examples of deeds dated 1274, which are thought to attempt to conceal the trade in commodities prohibited for supply to the Mamlūks, see Ibid., nos. 63, 92, 93, 100, 108. Although harbours under Mamlūk authority are mentioned in these documents as a destination, the type or quantity of the cargos is not stated.
60 PdB CSFS53, no. 20.
61 Ibid., no. 87.
62 Ibid., no. 88. From these documents dated in March 1279, it is understood that, in addition to his services as a notary, Pietro was an entrepreneur who conducted trade with Egyptian and Syrian harbours by establishing various partnerships and giving a share of the profits.
63 Ibid., no. 133.
64 Notai genovesi in oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (3 luglio 1300–3 agosto 1301), ed. Valeria Polonio [Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, volume 31] (Genoa: Università di Genova, Istituto di Medievistica, 1982) [hereafter LdS CSFS31], no. 364.
65 Ibid., no. 234.
66 Ibid., no. 173.
67 Ibid., no. 272; Notai Genovesi in Oltremare. Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (31 marzo 1304–19 luglio 1305, 4 gennaio–12 luglio 1307), Giovanni da Rocha (3 agosto 1308–14 marzo 1310), ed. M. Balard [Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, volume 43] (Genoa: Università di Genova, Istituto di Medievistica, 1984) [hereafter LdS CSFS43 and GdR CSFS43], nos. 45, 56.
68 LdS CSFS32, no. 13, 163.
69 Stantchev, Spiritual Rationality, 122–5.
70 Coureas, “Controlled Contacts”, 399.
71 FdP CSFS53, no. 3.
72 PdB CSFS53, no. 39.
73 Ibid., no. 35.
74 Ibid., no. 64.
75 Ibid., no. 70; Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 123.
76 PdB CSFS53, nos. 46, pp. 267–8.
77 Jacoby, “Supply of War Materials”, 122.
78 Redford, “Trade and Economy”, 302. The other slave trading route for Mamlūks passes through the Byzantine-controlled Bosphorus. Reuven Amitai, “Between the Slave Trade and Diplomacy: Some Aspects of Early Mamluk Policy in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea”, in Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c.1000–1500 CE), ed. Reuven Amitai and Christoph Cluse (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 401–22, esp. 404–5.
79 Amitai, “Between the Slave Trade and Diplomacy”, 404–15.
80 The treaties and some trading documents of the period, despite mentioning all kinds of commodities traded to Egypt and stated in Latin sources, do not clearly refer to slaves and the marketing of them. Ibid., 406–8.
81 For some of the slave traders in Islamic sources and their titles, see al-Maqrīzī, Al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-iʿtibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-l-āthār, volumes I–VII , ed. Ayman Fuʾād Sayyid (London: Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2013), III: 132–3; al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr wa-aʿwān al-naṣr , volumes I–V ed. ʿAlī Abū-Zayd (Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1998), I: 523; al-Maqrīzī, Al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār, IV/II: 655; al-Ṣafadī, Aʿyān al-ʿaṣr, II: 117. For fourteenth-century slave traders and their commercial activities, see also Sato Tsugitaka, “Slave Traders and Kârimî Merchants during the Mamluk Period: A Comparative Study”, Mamluk Studies Review 10 (2006): 141–56; Jenia Yudkevich “The Nature and Role of the Slave Traders in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Third Reign of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn (1310–41 CE)”, in Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c.1000–1500 CE), ed. Reuven Amitai and Christoph Cluse (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 423–36.
82 FdP CSFS53, nos. 13, 15, 43 (43a, 43b), 80; PdB CSFS53, no. 45.
83 FdP CSFS53, no. 13.
84 Ibid., no. 15.
85 It is thought that Falcadinus, like Seguranus, who supplied the needs of the Mamlūk Sultanate at that time and made various profits, also engaged in commercial activities in the same way. It is even possible that he might have put this term before his name while the transaction was taking place in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, intending to take advantage of the privileges granted to Mamlūk merchants. In addition, as noted above, the priest who complained about Seguranus also mentioned that he was not alone in this business and there were others trading in the same way. See William of Adam, How to Defeat the Saracens, 32–5.
86 FdP CSFS53, no. 80.
87 Merchants trading in slaves for the Mamlūk Sultanate are also referred to in the texts of treaties between the two states, as well as in the letters of complaint and notarial acts. The treaties request the Armenian king not to hinder those who supply male and female slaves, horses, mules and various other needed goods to the Mamlūks, regardless of their community. For more information, see Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir, Tashrīf al-ayyām, 100.
88 It should not be overlooked that Pascalis Manegueta, the slave’s new owner, according to the document, manumitted a slave in return for money he received from the Saracen Falcadinus. Meanwhile, the possibility that Falcadinus was really a Muslim who ransomed Muslim prisoners of war in the region may also be considered. If so, these slaves, Theodorinus and Iohanninus, might be captured Muslims and these Christian names may have been given by their traders. However, as in the case of Seguranus Salvaigus, it should not be forgotten that the term “Saracen” refers not only to Muslims but also to those who work for them. In addition, when the expression in the slave trading document which Pascalis was one of the parties, is examined with an other act for slave manumission registered by Falcadinus and Pascalis as a part, the difference of aforementioned manumission process from recognised samples of ransoming captives emerges. For ransomed Muslim captives and examples in Mamlūk period, see Yehoshua Frenkel, “Fikak al-Asir: The Ransom of Muslim Captives in the Mamluk Sultanate”, in Gefangenenloskauf in Mittelmerrraum, ed. Heike Grieser and Nicole Priesching (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2015), pp. 143–57.
89 Actes Passes a Famagouste de 1299–1301 par devant le Notaire Genois Lamberto di Sambuceto, ed. Cornelio Desimoni (Genes: Imprimerie de L’institut Royal des Ses Sourds-Muets, 1883), nos. 97, 110, 197; LdS CSFS31, nos. 168, 170; LdS CSFS32, nos. 71, 107; LdS CSFS43, no. 19; GdR CSFS43, nos. 73, 74, 76.
90 GdR CSFS43, nos. 45, 56.