War

War Lewis H. Mates DRAFT VERSION: The final version of this was published in Douglas Davies with Lewis H. Mates, The Encyclopedia of Cremation (Ashgate, 2005), pp.416-422 For millennia cremation has had a complex relationship with warfare, given the latter’s propensity to produce large numbers of corpses concentrated in a small area and requiring rapid disposal in order to preclude disease. Lucan gave an account of the army of Pompey at Durazzo which, failing to bury the bodies of horses killed in battle, was destroyed by the ensuing epidemics; a similar fate befell Constantine the Great’s army (Erichsen 1942:31). Even those who ordinarily shunned cremation occasionally regarded it as a solution to deaths caused by war or pestilence. Thus, as Oliver Dickinson notes elsewhere in this volume, by 480 BC cremation in Greece was largely employed only after battles and for Athenian plague victims. In Israel in early Christian times, there were examples of corpses cremated during war or plague despite burial being the normal practice (Riquet 1972:2). The early Catholic Church also adopted this position. Pope Saint Innocent I (401-417) maintained the opposition of the Church to cremation but allowed for dispensation to be given in exceptional cases such as epidemics or war and the Church held this attitude through the centuries. Thus, Christian peoples did on occasion employ cremation as a means of disposal in these extreme circumstances. For example, in 1431, during the One Hundred Years war, the French piled up the dead outside Paris and burnt them in a huge pyre. This was, incidentally, the same year that the French leader, Joan of Arc, was burned at the stake. Examples of the use of cremation during wartime in the nineteenth century include the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815, when some 4,000 corpses were reduced to ash on the battlefield by burning funeral pyres of resinous wood. In Spain, monarchist Carlist troops cremated many dead after the battle of Cuenca in 1874. Latin American armies also occasionally practised cremation as at the Battle of Rivas, Nicaragua, on 28 June 1855 between government troops and ‘Walker’s filibusters’; the latter’s commander, twelve officers and 100 men were all cremated. Cremation was employed by Charlone’s forces during campaigns against the indigenous Indians at Bahía Blanca in the late 1850s and also in the war between Argentina and Paraguay, 1864-70. The Crimean war (1854-6) aided cremation in another way. The need for advanced armaments led Sir Henry Bessemer to design a process that produced new types of steel that were capable of withstanding higher temperatures and thereby increasing cannon firepower. In peacetime, these new steels also allowed the development of cremators that could withstand the high temperatures necessary for the rapid cremation of corpses (Jupp 1999:19). During the Franco-Prussian war (1870-1), cremation the Prussian army used portable cremators (La Vanguardia 1919). That conflict also provoked the uprising that became the Paris commune, which also cremated some of its dead. A form of cremation was also eventually required for one of the conflicts’ battlefield mass burials that had caused the local population problems. After the battle of Sedan in 1870 more than 40,000 animals and humans were superficially buried, but the inhabitants of nearby Belgian villages began to suffer from epidemics of diseases. In 1872 the Belgian government acted, by sending in Colonel Creteur to deal with the problem. The mass graves were exposed by the application of chloride of lime, and dilute muriatic acid was then poured over them. This process laid bare the top layers of corpses, and large quantities of coal tar were poured over them, soaking down through the layers of corpses. More lime was applied then bundles of kerosene-soaked hay were thrown onto the grave-pit and set alight. Creteur estimated that 200-300 bodies were consumed in fifty to sixty minutes. The remaining mass, consisting largely of calcined bones, was about a 1 quarter of the original contents and, when reburied, this semi-cremated burial gave no further trouble to the locals (Erichsen 1942:31). Wartime burial convinced some to become cremation advocates, such as Johann Peter Trusen, a Prussian regimental doctor, who argued for compulsory cremation on the battlefield after having experienced the dangers of diseases from unsatisfactorily buried soldiers’ bodies in the 1850s. Similarly, the Swiss father of cremation, Jakob Wegmann-Ercolani, came to support the practice partly due to his experiences of the horrors of buried battlefield dead in Italy in 1861. Cremationists naturally used such examples to advance their agenda. In 1867, at an international congress in Paris on soldiers during wartime, two Italians spoke in favour of the use of cremation. In the 1880 International Hygiene Congress, the second part of a motion passed by delegates at a session on cremation requested governments that accepted the Sanitary Convention of Geneva to add an article stating that their armies would be provided with portable cremators for the disposal of their battlefield dead. However, cremation was not always employed even at time of war. For example, during the American Civil War (1861-5), most of those killed were buried on the battlefields. Relatives who wanted to bring the bodies of their loved ones home had them embalmed for the journey, and cremation was therefore unnecessary. In 1861, a proposal to cremate the buried semidecayed bodies of those killed at the Italian city of Gaeta was rejected by a council of war for religious reasons. Despite the obvious utility of cremation in wartime, and the implication that it could improve sanitary standards in cities if employed for the disposal of all corpses, the ancient distinction between using cremation in extreme circumstances but not in the course of everyday life appeared to remain. Thus in 1874, after the experience of cremation in the Franco-Prussian war, a British journalist wrote: ‘Where needed, as on the battlefield or in the plague-stricken city, cremation maybe properly resorted to as a sanitary agent’ (Newspaper Cuttings 1874:7-8). Still, he argued that even London possessed space for cemeteries outside the city, and therefore that cremation was not needed under normal circumstances. The Great War, 1914-1918 The twentieth century’s two massive wars had widespread repercussions for the development of cremation. The Great War witnessed very little actual use of cremation despite its incredibly high numbers of casualties with most buried on or near the battlefield (Erichsen 1942:32). The bodies of United States troops were buried in temporary cemeteries as they could not be shipped back whilst hostilities were ongoing. At the end of the war, the families of American dead chose to either have their relatives buried in a permanent overseas cemetery or shipped home, with sixty percent requesting the latter option (47,000 corpses). In order to safely transport the corpses, the army’s Quartermaster Corps chemically treated them, wrapped them in blankets and placed them in hermetically sealed caskets, which were in turn placed in protective containers for shipping home (Sledge 2003). The United States army went to considerable trouble to transport these corpses when cremation would have made the whole process far quicker, cheaper and easier. In Russia, the Bolshevik regime adopted cremation during the civil war following their accession to power in 1917, though for numerous reasons little initially came of this. Inter-war cremationists lamented the fact that cremation had not been used during the Greta War. At the 1936 International Cremation Congress in Prague, a Yugoslav delegate noted that during the war, though many had seen the necessity of mobile war crematoria they had not been used and that, as a consequence, soldiers’ bones still lay scattered around some battlefields. At the same congress another delegate noted that many in the Great War had been killed far from their kin and that it would have been far better if they could have been cremated and returned home to their relatives, but that this only occurred occasionally (Report 1936:16). 2 The Great War also brought many problems to domestic cremation projects, disrupting the work of cremation societies with some, like the French society, having members killed in battle; the Yugoslavs had their work interrupted by the Balkan wars (1912-1913) as well. The Great War caused a dramatic increase in the cost of building materials and projects already established, such as the construction of Vienna Crematorium, were postponed. Post-war inflation also reduced the purchasing power of cremation societies, limiting their ability to pay for both crematoria and propaganda. The Great War had many wider effects both favouring and hindering the development of cremation. On the negative side, cremationist Robert Hazemann claimed that in France the Catholic Church had taken ‘a step forward’ into the political arena during the Great War, ‘for every war means a retreat for reason and an advance of the forces of emotionalism and superstition’ (Report 1957:46). Given the Church’s staunch opposition to cremation, this was bad news for cremationists. Still, context remained important and, for example, the close of the war effected a swing to the left in internal Finnish politics, making the climate more favourable to cremation, though an actual crematorium there still took more than forty more years to emerge. E.S. Turner claimed that in Britain the ‘cataclysm’ of the war, a traumatic experience for all those involved, changed social customs and none more than the attitude to death and mourning. There was a consequent dilution and diminution of previous customs of mourning and funerals became simpler, memorials placed on graves less elaborate, and so forth. Thus the ‘seedbed’ was prepared for the dramatic growth in cremation after 1945 (Turner 1972:2). Peter Jupp agreed with this assessment, pointing out that arrangement for public mourning of the war dead ‘Paradoxically […] was to make ordinary grief, on the other 364 days of the year, less conspicuous’ and that war graves ‘only threw into prominence the difficulties of maintaining older cemeteries, many of them 70 years old’ (Jupp 1999:21; Jupp 1990:17-18). Still, as Jupp pointed out, the British cremation rate remained low in inter-war years. The Second World War, 1939-1945 The Second World War had numerous effects on the development of cremation, though once more it was not employed on the field of combat. As Hugo Erichsen articulated in 1942, in the ‘mass slaughter’ of modern warfare, the use of mobile crematoria on the battlefield was ‘entirely out of the question’. Erichsen concluded that either mass burial or, preferable from a sanitary point of view, the kind of mass cremation performed by Creteur in 1871 should be employed (Erichsen 1942:32). The USA, for example, largely repeated previous practice but with four times as many corpses to transport than after the Great War, and often from more distant places (Sledge 2003). Again, cremation would have solved many logistical problems. The saturation bombing raids carried out by all the main protagonists in the Second World War brought death to civilians on an unprecedented scale and yet cremation was still not widely employed to deal with these casualties. Thus, for example, after one of the most devastating raids, that of the allied incendiary attacks on Dresden in February 1945, only a very small proportion were cremated, the vast majority instead being buried in mass graves. In Britain, local authorities were asked to proceed on the matter of disposal of civilian casualties without real guidance from central government and again cremation was not widely employed (Bullett 1984:25, 27). Regarding the cremation movement, communication between cremation societies that had only recently been formally established in the form of the International Cremation Federation (ICF) was made increasingly difficult or impossible. Naturally, the ICF had to abandon efforts to place pressure on the Hungarian government to open Debrecen crematorium and the Prince of Monaco to allow the opening of the unused crematorium there. The ICF maintained as much correspondence as it could with neutral countries and the British Commonwealth, but 3 occupied countries were another matter. French cremationists, for example, could only communicate with the international movement via their Swedish counterparts. Indeed, the French could not even communicate properly with their comrades who happened to be resident in the German-occupied zone. Thus the French Federation was unable to hold a national congress during wartime. Cremation projects often had to be put on hold including a planned extension to gardens at Golders Green in England, the new French crematorium at Chambéry and Belgrade’s crematorium. Romanian cremationists never received a cremator that they had ordered and paid for before the war broke out. Lack of fuel in many countries during the war led to the closing down of crematoria. In France, of six crematoria, only Paris was in operation after 1943. Bombing, too, caused extensive damage to crematoria and cremationist facilities in many countries. In France, for example, the headquarters of Strasbourg Cremation Society was bombed, though its crematoria remained intact. Romanian cremationists were not so lucky and the air-raid damage to Bucharest crematorium, owned by the ‘Cenusa’ Cremation Society, placed it in serious financial difficulties after the war. Seventy percent of Tokyo’s crematoria were damaged or destroyed in the 1945 bombings. Some cremation societies were disbanded, including several in France. Others, such as Luxembourg Cremation Society, lost out to the occupying Nazi administration, with its cremation joint stock company being dissolved and its funds confiscated. The Luxembourg cremationist paper, Flamma, was terminated in 1941 as it was compelled to carry German propaganda. The Yugoslav cremation societies suffered badly, being outlawed by occupying forces, having their property confiscated and their offices and records almost entirely destroyed. These events had the consequence of reducing cremation society memberships in these countries. Important cremationists also suffered. Some French, Luxembourg and Yugoslav cremationists were deported and imprisoned and others, like the president of Nice Cremation Society and the secretary of the ‘Plamen’ Society, were killed. Though most ICF activities ‘automatically closed down’ during the war, it could have suffered further. Immediately before the German invasion of Holland, the German Cremation Association attempted to compel the transfer of the ICF secretariat and funds to The Hague. This move was resisted and, instead, ICF funds were invested in the British Post Office. This way, ICF records were maintained and funds retained. It lost only some £93, the dues paid by the German Cremation Association into an ICF account in a German bank in 1939. Financial problems did arise, however, with the dramatic post-war inflation. In 1957, the treasurer reported that the ICF was having problems as it was operating on a pre-war budget and the extensive price rises since the end of the war had not been taken into account (Report 1957:10). A devaluation of the French Franc meant that money donated before the war for crematorium projects there lost much of its value. In at least one country war conditions momentarily advanced cremation in legal terms. In Sweden, a legal amendment in 1943 allowed for the cremation of people who died as a consequence of the war or due to infectious diseases. In countries that were not directly bombed, there were some advances as in Canada where a crematorium was built at New Denver for the Japanese population, evacuated from British Columbia’s coastal areas. Numbers of cremations in Canada continued to rise steadily in the war years, though at a slower rate than before 1939. Japanese influence worked in both directions elsewhere. In the Far East, Japan was the invading imperial power. Shintoism required that all Japanese dead should be cremated and the ashes returned to their families, even during wartime (Lien-Teh 1949:11). Thus, the Japanese army helped advance cremation in Hong Kong when it built a crematorium there for its war dead. The cremators it used were employed elsewhere in Hong Kong until as late as 1979, though this wartime crematorium was not the first built in the 4 colony (Lee 1988). In Malaya, Dr Wu Lien-Teh blamed the disruption caused by the war and the threat of Japanese invasion for the fact that a municipal crematorium did not already exist in there. Japan had been in armed conflict with China for some years before 1939. At the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war, the Chinese army practised cremation for a while but it proved to be too slow and expensive (Erichsen 1942:32). Territorial and geo-political changes at the end of the conflict brought about both advances and created new obstacles. Roman Catholic Poland, where the pre-war government had prohibited cremation, gained territory that included several crematoria from eastern Germany. However, the wider political changes that swept Eastern Europe in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War were not so favourable to international co-operation over the development of cremation, at least within Europe. The Czechs, important within the ICF before 1939, were unable to attend the first post-war ICF congress at The Hague as they had not succeeded in getting permission to enter Holland. The Yugoslavs were also not in attendance, and the Poles, though gaining all the eastern German crematoria, remained uncommunicative with the ICF for decades. The Russians did not reply to the ICF invitation and the Romanians, though in touch in 1946, were particularly uncommunicative after then. The developing ‘cold war’ meant that the ICF would have only tenuous links with very few Eastern Bloc countries, largely Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, until after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988. Yet, despite this lack of communication, the new communist regimes in Eastern Europe often appeared to be at least slightly more favourable to cremation than their pre-war governments had been. Debrecen crematorium in Hungary, for example, had not been allowed to open before the war, but was operating legally soon after 1945. A shorter-term problem was the understandable absence of German cremationists, as the ICF executive had, in 1948, ‘not seen our way to receive that country’ (Report 1948:5). Before 1939 Germany had been in the vanguard of cremation in Europe. Now split into two and reduced in territorial size, Germany’s absence from the ICF was not as important as it might have been because cremation had lost much of its popularity there. Still, this decline of the ‘legitimate’ use of cremation in Germany after 1945 was a blow to the cremation movement’s development, as was the fact that its ‘illegitimate’ use in German-occupied territories during the Holocaust led to the practice being regarded with revulsion by many both within and outside the country. These were indirect effects of the war, in that the conflict threw up circumstances that allowed these awful events to happen. During his presidential address to the 1948 ICF Congress at The Hague, Dr P.H. Van Roojen noted that the war had temporarily paralysed the international movement. However, he went on say: ‘Happily, the idea of cremation won ground in several countries during the war, with the consequence that the movement has come out much stronger ultimately’. Cremation had apparently made ‘great progress’ in countries that had remained ‘free from domination’ during the war. Clearly some progress had been made in countries like Britain that had not been invaded. One element related to the war that gave further impetus to cremation was the fact that, due to enemy bombing, many people required re-housing. This supported the cremationist argument that land should be used for housing instead of cemeteries. An important long-term effect of the Second World War was that it altered popular attitudes to death, thereby boosting the popularity of cremation. French cremationists noted that after the Second World War those who favoured cremation now included ‘people of conservative views’ who had been ‘on the whole against cremation’ before 1939 (Report 1954:11). This was echoed by another French cremationist, Dr Godard, in 1984. In 1954, Dr C.F. White claimed that in Britain the war had been a stimulus to cremation because many knew people who had no known grave and there ‘had been less emotion about death and they had concentrated their thoughts less on the physical body and more on the personality of the 5 deceased’ (Report 1954:12). Peter Jupp argued that in Britain cremation as the basis of ‘a municipal solution to the urban problem of the disposal of the dead was laid well before 1939’. In Britain the cremation rate doubled from almost four percent to just under eight percent during wartime, the war having a ‘popularising effect’ on cremation (Jupp 1999:22). The British Cremation Society, in the context of heavy civilian casualties caused by air raids, approached the Home Secretary and was able to further cremation by helping make it a choice that was more possible to the public. The war conditions also helped reveal the problems with the complex legislation that had developed regarding the disposal of the dead and the need for its simplification. As in the Great War, but on a far larger scale given civilian casualties, the Second World War also altered popular attitudes to death in a way favourable to cremation. The widespread bombing helped split up established poor communities where there was social stigma attached to inexpensive funerals and thereby allowed the poor to opt for cheaper funerals without losing face. The demands of post-war economising made cremation more attractive to local authorities (Jupp 1990:19,23-4). Cremationists in countries not directly involved in the conflict had differing ideas of its effects. Argentine cremationists in the 1950s, though arguing that the Second World War had increased social progress in the world, did not think it had had any effect in their country. In fact, for unknown reasons, they argued that conditions in their country had regressed during this period. The only indication from cremationists that the war had altered attitudes within key institutions that had previously opposed cremation came from the Romanians. They claimed in 1946 that the Orthodox Church there had slightly softened its attitude against cremation, but the extent to which this was a direct consequence of the war was unclear. In summary, it is clear the Second World War had many and diverse effects, of short, medium and long term consequences both favouring and militating against cremation. On balance, it seems that many, but not all, short term effects were to cremation’s detriment, but that the longer term changes in social attitudes engendered or furthered by the war broadly acted as a spur to cremation. Nuclear and Conventional War, 1945-2004 The final months of the Second World War heralded the beginning of a new age in warfare as the allied use of atomic ‘H’ bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the horror of a new type of ‘instant cremation’ to the unfortunates near the epicentre of the blasts. Hiroshima was the target for the first atomic bomb, ‘Little Boy’, on 6 August 1945. Approximately 70,000 people were killed and another 80,000 wounded and three quarters of the city’s buildings were destroyed or severely damaged. Three days later Nagasaki suffered 30,000 deaths and another 45,000 injured and over a third of the city was destroyed by the second atomic device. As Alan Bullett said: ‘nuclear war brings a new dimension to horror on an unprecedented scale’ (Bullett 1984:25). It was this scale, the high number of deaths caused, that would provide a serious logistical problem for the survivors. The longer the dead remained un-disposed of, the greater the health risks for the living. In 1984, using Home Office figures, Alan Bullett estimated the numbers of dead requiring disposal from two different sized nuclear devices being detonated on urban areas, though he pointed out that a full-scale nuclear attack could kill sixty percent of a country’s population. Almost 12,000 people in the immediate vicinity of a detonated 150 KT device would leave no trace of their bodies. There would be instant death up to a radius of 1.6 miles from the epicentre of the blast leaving a total of around 53,000 bodies requiring rapid disposal. A oneMT device, however, would kill around 200,000 people over an area of thirty-five square miles. The first period after a strike would be one of ‘utter shock and dislocation’, and it would be very difficult to dispose of the dead. A second period of lower but sustained levels of deaths from injuries and radiation sickness would then ensue (Bullett 1984:27). 6 Ostensibly, mass cremation would be a useful and rapid means of disposal of these casualties. Bullett argued that in the immediate aftermath of an attack, cremation could not be employed, but that disposal of bodies by some form of burning had to be considered. Some idea of the kind of cremation that could be practised in such circumstances was given by the mass outdoor cremations of farm animals killed by diseases such as foot-and-mouth. The same method could, Bullett argued, be used for the disposal of large numbers of bodies killed during conventional warfare. However, in nuclear war fuel was likely to be irreplaceable for some time and could therefore only be used for highest priority activities such as transportation of food or medical supplies. Even straw and kindling wood that could be used on open-air mass pyres would be necessary for heating and old tyres, a feature of the open-air animal cremations in Britain in 2001, would probably be required for vehicles. Bullett was clear that mass burial would be the only option in the circumstances of a nuclear attack, but underlined that there was a need firstly to identify good mass burial sites that would not require the moving of bodies over long distances and that would not effect underground water supplies or pose other environmental risks. Like the Second World War, central government had delegated the disposal of bodies in the event of a nuclear attack to the local authorities and provided few guidelines. Bullett was clear that cremationists had an important role to play in any method of disposal that was employed in these circumstances by using their experience to advise local authorities (Bullett 1984:27-8). In January 2001, documents released from the National Record Office revealed that many years before Bullett the Scottish authorities had come to the same conclusion. In response to a parliamentary question in 1961 from an MP who wanted to know about the designated burial officer for Western Scotland, civil servants from the Scottish Office conducted research on the likely consequences of a nuclear attack on Scotland. Their report in 1970 predicted that a nuclear attack on Scotland could kill one million people. The Scottish office and local authorities drew up contingency plans that dealt with ways of disposing of the dead. Cremation, it was argued, would use too much fuel and the sinking of corpses in hulks of ships at sea would require too much handling. The one solution was mass burial pits dug by the ‘unemployed’. In recent years, the grisly spectre of an ‘instantaneous cremation’ suffered by the victims of nuclear weapons was evident in US soldier Selina Perez’s description of dead Iraqi soldiers as ‘crispy critters’. The victims of depleted uranium warheads during the first Gulf war, the Iraqi’s bodies had, according to Patricia Axelrod, been ‘burned to near-cremation’: These were people whose blood had boiled and evaporated. Their uniforms burned away with their skin down to naked, blackened bones, leaving vacantly staring charcoaled skeletons brittle enough to break up into skull, torso, legs, arms, and ashes. Calling them ‘crispy critters’ was Perez’s way of dealing with the horror of disposing of the radiated remains of death by depleted uranium (DU) in the Persian Gulf (Axelrod 1999). The Second Gulf War, begun in 2003, again revealed that cremation was still not regarded as a useful means of corpse disposal, even if the corpses in question were infected with chemical agents. Apparently anticipating that the Iraqi regime might use some of the chemical and biological weapons that western powers had supplied it with (wrongly, as it turned out), elaborate measures were planned to deal with contaminated corpses of war dead. The military ruled out the use of mass burial, but there was the option of temporary interment if the remains could not be completely cleansed. However, the military planners noted that some countries might raise objections to such burials on their territory and even if corpses were not contaminated, temporary interment was regarded as a ‘last-case scenario’, necessitating highlevel approval. Cremation appeared to be an ideal option, as it could be carried out relatively rapidly without exposing troops to possible contamination. However, the planners thought that 7 ‘some Americans may consider cremation to be repugnant or against religious beliefs’ and it was this public opposition that was the main reason cremation was not favoured amongst the military (Sledge 2003). Curiously, only a few days earlier, the Chicago Tribune reported that the Pentagon was ‘considering cremating the remains of any US troops killed by biological or chemical attacks in Iraq rather than bringing them home for burial’ (Chicago Tribune 2003). Instead, as in the past, the favoured option was to use a containment system. That such an elaborate, time consuming and expensive procedure was chosen over cremation for the disposal of those killed by chemical or biological attacks is a testament to the perceived strength of opposition to cremation by much of American society, despite the current twentyeight percent cremation rate in the country. This, perhaps, reflects Marvin and Ingle’s theory that the United States values its military dead because they are a kind of sacrifice that helps bind the nation together under a single president and flag, a flag that is always a paramount symbol in covering the containers of the dead (Marvin and Ingle 1999). War once provided an ‘extreme’ occasion when cremation could be used by peoples who did not ordinarily employ the practice. Now, paradoxically, though cremation is more practised in everyday occidental life than at any time in the last two millennia, its use in wartime seems even less probable. The only kind of cremation likely to be employed on the modern battlefield, which can include the civilian populations of towns and cities, is the ‘instantaneous’ type that occurs when nuclear warheads, depleted uranium shells or similar weapons are used on human beings. References Axelrod, Patricia (1999), ‘The Gulf War: Depleted Uranium’, from ‘Secrets and Lies’ in The Boston Phoenix, 7-14 October, online at: http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html? page=/iraqinfo/gulfwar/du.html. (Accessed May 2004). Bullett, Alan W. (1984), ‘Disposal of the Dead in War- A Review of the Problems’, Pharos 50(1) 1984:25-33. CANA (1924-1954), Reports of CANA Annual Conventions, CRE/A/US4. Newspaper Cuttings (1874), CRE/H/1. Chicago Tribune (2003, February 7), ‘Cremation eyed for bio-war dead’, at: http://www. chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0302070411feb07,1,3039873.story. (Accessed May 2004). Erichsen, Dr Hugo (1942), ‘Cremation on the Battlefield’, CANA Annual Convention Report: 31-33. ICF Committee for Propaganda (1963), ‘The World Problems of the Disposal of the Dead’, paper presented to the ICF Congress at Berlin, CRE/D4/1963/3. Jupp, Peter (1990), From Dust to Ashes: The Replacement of Burial by Cremation in England 1840-1967, London: The Congregational Lecture, London School of Economics. Jupp, Peter (1999), ‘History of the Cremation Movement in Great Britain: the First 125 Years’, Pharos 65(1) 1999:18-25. Kazmier, Lisa (2001), ‘A Symbolic Space: Rural Myth, the Great War and the Growth of Cremation’, Pharos 67(3) 2001:3-6,8-9. La Vanguardia (1919, January 1), article reproduced in Boletín de la Asociación Argentina de Cremación, 10 (December 1926):14-15. Lee, John Sheung-yee (1988), ‘Cremation in Hong Kong - Part I’, Pharos 54(2):56-9. Lien-Teh, Dr Wu (1949), ‘Cremation Among the Chinese - Past and Present’, Pharos 15(2) 1949:9-11. Marvin, Carolyn and David W. Ingle (1988), Blood Sacrifice and the Nation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pinaud, Fr. (2004), ‘Is Cremation Allowed?’, online at: http://www.catholicapologetics. info/cremat.htm. (Accessed May 2004). 8 Report (1936), of the International Cremation Congress in Prague, CRE/D4/1936/3. Report (1948), of the ICF Congress at The Hague, CRE/D4/1948/1. Report (1951), of the ICF Congress at Copenhagen, CRE/D4/1951/2. Report (1954), of the ICF Congress at Oslo, CRE/D4/1954/2. Report (1957), of the ICF Congress at Zurich, CRE/D4/1957/2. Riquet, Michel (1972), ‘The Catholic Church and the Cremation of Corpses’, paper presented at the Grenoble ICF Congress. Sein, Dr Andres S. (1936), Crematorio de Buenos Aires - Ordenanzas y Decretos Reglamentarios Sobre la Incineración de Cadaveres Humanos, Vigentes en la Capital Federal cuyo Cumplimento se Observa en el Crematorio de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires: Crematorio de Buenos Aires, CRE/F/AG/2. Sledge, Mike (2003, February 16), ‘U.S. military ponders options for handling war dead’, in Dallas Morning News available at http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter23/in021603wardead.html. (Accessed May 2004). Turner, E.S. (1972), ‘An Evaluation of factors Leading to the Progressive Adoption of Cremation in the UK’, paper presented at the Grenoble ICF Congress, CRE/D4/1972/14. 9