Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Germans and Jews – a film review

Three Germans at dinner: an immigrant artist from Israel; Mrs. Gop;
a non-Jewish German citizen who used to prefer the identity "European"
to "German" but is becoming more comfortable with German pride
I saw a first-rate documentary at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival yesterday, titled Germans and Jews.  A collaboration by two New Yorkers, director Janina Quint, who grew up as a non-Jew in Germany, and producer Tal Recanati, who grew up Jewish in the U.S. and in Israel, it is a face-on encounter with the effect of the Holocaust on Jewish attitudes toward Germany and Germans, and a close-up view of Jews living in Germany today.  Ken Jaworowsky of The New York Times has called it “part psychology seminar and part sociology course…a real cause for hope, despite history.”  

I worked for the French Railroads years ago, during the 60s, helping travel agencies and individuals in San Francisco get tickets and reservations on European trains (i.e., not just in France).  I remember a conversation on the phone with a customer who wanted to get from Paris to Vienna but didn’t want to travel through Germany.  “Why not?” I asked, suspecting the answer.  Sure enough.  “Because I’m Jewish,” she answered, without hesitation.

I’ve known Jews who wouldn’t be caught dead buying a German car, or even a German washing machine.

The thing is, though, I’m in my 70s and was alive from 1940 to 1945 and remember the end of the war. And that means my Germans vs. Jews notions were formed some time ago.  It's hard to keep up with changes, and this film was enlightening indeed.  I realized as I watched how much I was in need of the update the film provided.

I remember getting to know concentration camp survivors in the 50s and 60s, and seeing the tattoos on their arms.  I remember distinctly how awkward it was getting Germans, even in my own family, to talk of the war.  The most common attitude seemed to be, “Some things are best forgotten.  I think we should focus on the future, not on the past.”  The people I grew up with had direct personal knowledge of the war from a variety of perspectives, German, non-German, Jewish, non-Jewish, including overlapping perspectives, and the burden of memory was simply too much for some of them.

I was a student in Munich, in 1960, and I saw an announcement one time that there would be a showing of concentration camp films in a large auditorium at the university.  I was taking a course in the history of the Nazi period at the time and was curious about how much they would actually show.  They showed it all, the kids with the tattooed arms, the “Kauft nicht bei Juden (Don’t buy from Jews)” signs, right down to the bulldozers pushing corpses into ditches for burial.  Several people got sick and many went running out of the room.  It was an unforgettable moment, particularly since I had built up the conviction that I would never get a German to talk about what really happened.  It made clear to me that even if the majority of people were shunning the memory, some were not.  Some were facing their country’s immediate history and trying to figure out what to do with that confrontation.

Over the years I met more people who spoke of asking, “What did you do during the war, Papa?”  and then as the years went by, “What did you do during the war, Grandpa?” and of either getting no answer at all, or the protest that their people were never “Mitmacher” – people who went along. 

Other histories of the early post-war period, beyond the scope of this documentary but relevant to its conclusions, reveal just how long the de-nazification process took to unfold.  One example is the fight by Fritz Bauer to bring Adolf Eichmann to justice.  That story is told in The People vs. Fritz Bauer, also playing at the SF Jewish Film Festival this year.  And in Labyrinth of Lies, which I reviewed last October.  The American decision to pursue the Cold War led them to drag their feet on bringing Nazi crimes into the public view, and that only furthered the “focus on the future” argument.

But in all this time, I realized that I was getting a look at this question entirely from the non-Jewish German perspective.  I didn’t know a single German Jew living in Germany today.  And for that reason, the film had an impact on me beyond the obvious.

For one thing, I was working with the assumption that the majority of Germans still remained ignorant of the Holocaust, or perhaps had a superficial understanding, something akin to Americans’ knowledge of their cowboy-and-Indian history.

The American TV mini-series, The Holocaust, was shown on German television in 1978 and was viewed by half the German population.  Despite some criticism - Elie Wiesel called it soap opera and a trivialization - it had, from most reports, a profound impact on Germans.  Since then the topic has been opened wide, and one of the people interviewed claimed that Germans are better informed on the topic than other Europeans. Whether that's true doesn't matter much - it's not a competition.  What matters is that German history no longer stops with Charlemagne, as another interviewee said of his school experience.  There is now extensive coverage in school of the time of the Third Reich, and a large number of documentaries, including some featuring the children of Nazis, including Nazis who ran the concentration camps, are now widely available for viewing.  History of the Third Reich is no longer a taboo subject and information once shunned is now out in the open.  Whether and to what degree reconciliation takes place, at least the ground is better prepared for it than in previous decades. A sea change has taken place from the attitude in the first decade or two after the war, where anti-Semitism was still in the air as part of the cultural baggage, like smoke in the floors and walls of a building which had suffered a major fire.  

Today, if anything, the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction.  Anti-Semitism has largely been replaced by philo-Semitism, the desire on the part of Germans to bend over backwards to be kind to Jews on the personal level and speak kindly of anything Jewish.  As Thorsten Wagner points out, many Germans are only too happy to point out to you how smart the Jews are, how musical, how talented this way and that.  He worries that they sometimes spill over – how good at business, for example – into praise that could turn to anti-Semitism in an instant.  Wagner is the Danish academic director of a program called Fellowships at Auschwitz, affiliated with the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York, and an example of somebody with a Nazi background who has made a career in Jewish, particularly holocaust, history.  German historian, Fritz Stern, who also figures prominently in the documentary, worries that the desire to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive has a downside – he’d like for Jews to be known for something besides their history as victims.

What puts this documentary a cut above most is the brilliant selection of voices chosen to tell the story.  Besides Thorsten Wagner and Fritz Stern, there is a Russian couple, the Gops, two of a great many Russian Jews who have left the Soviet Union for Germany.  The husband speaks freely and openly.  He’s very happy with his choice.  Not that he has become a patriot, but because, he says, it’s a great place to live and raise his children.  His wife has many of the same attitudes – used to have, that is – of her parents’ generation – “How could a Jew ever live in Germany again?”  One of the Germans in the film declares that he doesn’t want to identify as German, but as European, expressing an attitude that until recently was common among Germans.  A German woman wonders if she's mistaken for Jewish because she has a big nose.  A jarring note, but one which gives the film a sense of authenticity.

Neue Synagoge, Oranienburgerstrasse, Berlin
The filmmakers put on a dinner and invited all the participants to share their thoughts around the table.  Their conversation is interspersed with talking head commentary and scenes of normal life in Berlin today.  What comes of this is a remarkably positive image of life in Berlin today, with the assumption that this applies to rest of the country, as well.  Particularly striking is the number of Israelis who have emigrated to Berlin.  Partly because it’s a thriving in-place to be, with a lively cultural and night life, partly, as one Israeli confesses, “because it’s safer than Israel.”

Menorah before the Brandenburg Gate
The positive image of Germany portrayed in the film is not a whitewash.  
There are still neo-Nazis to contend with.  And even more troubling are a number of immigrants from Turkey and other Muslim-culture nations who have brought anti-Semitism with them as part of their cultural inheritance.  And then there is the fact that this place called Germany, which once had as many as half a million Jews today has fewer than 120,000, or .2% of the German population, a constant reminder of genocide.  The point though, is that that number is rising faster in Germany than anywhere else, and there are some stunning iconic images to represent that change – the rebuilt Oranienburger Strasse New Synagogue, for example and the image of the 30-foot menorah in front of the Brandenburg Gate.

The desire for remembrance is inevitably in conflict with the desire of people to focus on the positive.  Elie Wiesel spent his life telling the holocaust story, and was plagued by people complaining of his beating a dead horse.  Like Bernie Sanders, who was put down by opponents for his johnny-one-note focus on economic disparity in the U.S., Wiesel’s vow that “they shall not be forgotten” came with a cost.  Simon Wiesenthal hunted Nazis all his life and had to contend with charges that he was dredging up bad memories and hounding people who had moved on and built new productive lives, to no good end.

I believe there is wisdom in the George Santayana line, “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” And for me, the challenge when faced with an either/or proposition is to turn it into a both/and proposition.  How do we both remember the war and its victims and use that memory as a jumping off point for positive change?  That this can be done is illustrated by the Stolpersteine phenomenon.

“Stolpern” is “stumble” in German, and in 1992 Cologne artist Gunter Demnig came up with the idea of placing cobblestones with brass plates in the road for people to “stumble across.”  They are put there by people who want to remember that "a Jew once lived here" or worked here or was otherwise associated with a particular place nearby.  In Germans and Jews a woman, reflecting the guilt many Germans feel toward Jews, spoke of going out and polishing the plaques in front of her building.  She then located relatives of the people on the plaque and let them know their loved ones were being remembered.  Call it schmalzy, if you will.  I call it reconciliation.

Another important issue taken up in the documentary is how differently anti-semitism and Nazism are remembered by those who grew up in the Federal Republic (West Germany) and in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).  The East Germans put all their emphasis on building socialism and claimed all the Nazis had left for the West, thus enabling them to claim Nazism was a strictly West German phenomenon.  A remarkable fiction, one with effects still felt in the difficulty East Germans have coming to terms with the seeds of fascism and anti-semitism still extant in modern life.  It’s hard to root something out you don’t believe was there in the first place.

Time seems to be healing even something as brutal and inhuman as the Holocaust and the devastation inflicted by the Third Reich.  Germans and Jews speaks not only to those interested in Jewish and German history.  But to all of us who surrender at times to despair and cynicism.  Of the many dramatic moments in this story of reconciliation in Germans and Jews, the most memorable one, I think, is the story of the Russian couple, the Gops.  The husband represents those who argue for forgetting history.  The wife, those who for one reason or another cannot forget or who will themselves not to forget.  In the end, Mrs. Gop comes around to embracing this new Germany they have emigrated to.  The moment came, she says, when she saw her son playing with the German team in the international Maccabiah games, which some like to refer to as the “Jewish Olympics,”   in Israel.  There they were, Jewish kids in Israel, rooting for their home team.  “Deutschland!  Deutschland!  Deutschland!” they were shouting.

I guess I can call Germany home now, said Mrs. Gop.

Germans and Jews
Released by First Run Features
English and German with English subtitles

USA. 76 min. Not rated

Monday, August 1, 2016

Voting while Evangelical

I find this latest Pew Research chart showing overwhelming support for Donald Trump by white Evangelicals fascinating.  There is so much in these figures to wonder at – the fact that they are virtually the mirror image of the ‘nones,” for example. Or between blacks and whites, and between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.  Free thinkers avoid Trump, Bible thumpers embrace him.  Now how do you make sense of that?

To start with the Evangelicals, the first answer that comes to mind is that it’s likely the Evangelicals include a whole lot of single-issue voters, and that issue is abortion. Trump was once in favor of a woman’s right to choose, but he has come around since deciding to run for president to be anti-abortion and pro-gun control.  Also part of the story is the successful strategy of the right-wing to line up evangelicals on the full range of right-wing issues.  Not just unrestricted use of guns, but the myth that the right is pro-small government when in reality it is actually for very big government when it comes to a strong defense, and translates that into support of the military-industrial complex.  And when it comes to controlling women's bodies, as well, bringing behavior in line with the religious views of evangelicals.  A culture war frontline issue, in which the army of the right favors limiting sex to reproduction and women to male domination generally, while the left looks to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights instead, in which sexism and racism and homophobia are seen as retrograde values to be cast into the dustbin of history. It turns out they, the right, want small government only when it comes to taking some of that money which has floated to the top 1% and putting it into roads, bridges, healthcare, and education through university.

What blows my mind, as someone who sees the appeal of Christianity in its emphasis on love and compassion, concern for the poor, the homeless, the sick and the needy, is how Evangelicals have turned Christianity into something quite rotten.  How an Evangelical can bash away at gay people all these years for their alleged promiscuity, for example, and then throw their support behind a man who cheats on his first wife with the woman who becomes his second and then dumps her, as well, for a model.  Not that I think there’s anything wrong with models.  Or with divorce, for that matter.  It’s that they do.  Or at least say they do.  And it gets harder and harder to mask the hypocrisy.  They will tell you it’s not hypocrisy, of course, but a simple prioritizing of values.  Better a philanderer who opposes abortion than a boring middle-of-the-road mainstream Methodist victim of a philandering husband – who favors abortion rights.  Guess that’s the choice Jesus would make.

And what of the Mainstream Protestant vote - an 11-point spread in favor of Trump.  What explains that, aside from the fact that this group is overwhelmingly white?

Then there are the Catholics.  What a split between Hispanic and non-Hispanic Catholics.  In case you ever had any doubt that cultural values can, and usually do, trump religious ones – here it is all spelled out for you.  If you followed your church’s authority figures, the pope, the curia, the bishops, you’d vote for the sex-for-reproduction only candidate.  OK, wait a minute.  That’s not right.  You’d vote for the guy who is against abortion.  That’s it.  Then how come this gigantic split between non-Hispanics, half of whom follow the strict line on abortion, and Hispanics, who go solidly for the woman in favor of women’s rights?

That question, too, is probably easily answered.  Trump has revealed himself to be a bigot in silk suits, claiming that Mexicans need to be kept at bay by a wall because of their inclination to rape and murder.  And the many folks from south of the border who have made their way into the States for economic reasons need to go back, for the same reason.  Hispanics know that way of viewing their culture and their people is pure bigotry and decency requires they support the candidate who would work for a saner (and much more practical) solution.  Sorry, Mr. Pope-in-Rome, we’ve got a pretty good reason to go for the Methodist value here.  You know, that John Wesley quote Hillary gave in her acceptance speech, “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”  Totally mainstream Protestant way of articulating religion, and one that a Hispanic Catholic (or anybody else, obviously) can embrace enthusiastically.  I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that they are embracing Hillary for positive reasons; they could, of course, simply be voting anti-Trump.

My point about culture trumping religion is brought out all the more clearly in the distribution among
African-Americans:  8% for Trump and 89% for Clinton.  Doesn’t get more dramatic than that.  Some blacks may take Trump’s two divorces as a reason to disapprove of him, of course.  But I’ll wager the real picture is the cultural one, the fact that this election is about the last gasp of white supremacists to hold onto cultural and political control via the Republican Party and the clearly articulated support on the democratic platform for minorities.  A quick look at this Paul Ryan selfie of himself with White House interns tells the story.  I can only imagine how that picture must come across to you if you’re a black American.

My point, I guess, is that you can’t tell a book by its cover.  And you can’t be sure you know about the significance of American religious affiliation by looking at this poll of Americans ostensibly on the basis of religious affiliation.  Sometimes a Christian isn’t much of a Christian.  Sometimes a Catholic is a pope-knows-best Catholic; sometimes Catholic means caring for the poor and ministering to the needy, and not worrying who should be prevented from approaching the communion rail.  You don’t know all there is to know by following the label “Christian” or “Catholic.”  Without much more poking around in the motivations of these voters, you see that the labels can actually mask as much as they reveal.

If you give a moment’s thought to the fact that blacks, Hispanics and the non-religious are all overwhelmingly anti-Trump, and stand in such sharp contrast to white Christians, Catholic, Mainstream Protestant or Evangelical, you might want to ask yourself just exactly what is going on among these folks who call themselves Christians anyway.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

The Last Kingdom - a film review

Gentlemen of the Saxon and Viking Reenactment
Society of East Anglia
Sometime in the early 400s, C. E., we can imagine Romans living in places like Londinium, Eboracum or Mancunium (London, York or Manchester) in Provincia Brittania, taking note of the arrival of Saxons and Angles and Jutes from across the Oceanus Germanicus (North Sea). 

Whether these were invaders or simply folks looking for some greener pastures is actually still a contested issue, believe it or not.  In any case, they had come to stay and a Roman-controlled Celtic (Briton) Britain gave way to a Germanic Britain.  To complicate matters, the Britons gave their name to Brittany in France, which some of them fled to.  The Celts retreated to Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and Scotland.  Those who didn’t stay and make babies with the new occupiers of Germanic Britain, that is.  From the Angles, we get the name of England and the English language, although at the time, locals pretty much referred to all three groups as “Saxons.”  To this day, the Scottish Gaelic name for England is Sasainn, and the people of England are Sassunach.  In Ireland, it’s Sasana and Sasanach, respectively.*

By the time the Vikings began raiding Britain, a few centuries later, the Saxons had become a distinct race of people.  I’m using “race” in the social-cultural sense, the way Hispanics use “La Raza”.  Genetically, of course, they were still the same people as the Vikings now come to bop them on the head and take their things.  Linguistically, too, the two groups probably had a large degree of mutual intelligibility, kind of like German and Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese, or Russian and Polish.

If you grow up with an interest in English history, you know of King Alfred the Great.  Have always loved his name.   If you know German, you know that “Rat” (old spelling: Rath) means council.  Rathaus, I learned as a kid, is not a house for rats, but rather “council house,” the German word for “city hall.”  “Red” is just another Germanic variation on “rath,” and has taken on the meaning of “wise man.”  Alfred was small in stature, evidently (I’m guessing), and probably suffered from Crohn’s disease, and that may have made him a tad bookish.  In any case, he was known as “the wise elf.”

But I digress.  I was getting to the BBC television series known as The Last Kingdom, which I have just finished binge-watching.  The Last Kingdom refers to Alfred’s kingdom.  At some point, the Vikings, or “Danes” (just as Angles and Jutes were subsumed under Saxons, Norwegians were subsumed, as well, this time under “the Danes.”) had landed in East Anglia and pretty much occupied three of the English kingdoms – Northumberland in the North, Mercia in the Center, East Anglia in the East.  Only the West Saxon (i.e., Wessex) kingdom remained in Saxon hands under Alfred.  Map is available here

Now imagine the drama you can squeeze out of this history.  Imagine a boy from up North, in Northumberland, say, in the year 866 and follow his life for ten years or so.   Let’s call the boy Uhtred (he too, please note, can also be “wise”), using a real character from later years, but stick him into this time period and make a hero out of him.  Have his father, the original Uhtred, killed by an invading Dane, an earl named Ragnar, and have Uhtred the younger enslaved and raised by the Danes.  Great material for some pre-modern identity politics – Dane vs. Saxon, fun-loving marauder vs. pious Christian, outsider vs. insider. 

Bernard Cornwell, a prolific writer of historical novels, has written a series he calls The Saxon Stories.  The first couple of these novels was the basis for The Last Kingdom, an eight-part television series produced by BBC and aired in October of last year.  The story I’ve sketched out is the TV version, not Cornwell’s original.  The screenwriters have tinkered with Cornwell’s details, one has to assume, for dramatic effect.  It caught my eye when Netflix announced it was available for streaming in the United States and in Britain.  A second series is in production and expected to air later in this year.  Plot summary is available here

Uhtred develops a strong affectional relationship with Earl Ragnar, his Danish father, despite the fact it was Ragnar who killed his Saxon father, and struggles over whether to define himself as Saxon or Dane.  Uhtred is driven by two overriding desires: the Saxon in him leads him to seek the help of Alfred to regain his rightful place as ealdorman (think “duke” – the Latin translation is “dux”) of Bebbanburg (today’s Bamburgh) in the North.  The Dane in him burns with loyalty to his Danish brother, Ragnar “the fearless”, together with whom he hopes to avenge the death of their Danish father, Ragnar the Elder.  Throw in a bunch of other life companions – Brita, a Saxon girl taken at the same time as Uhtred as a slave by the Danes; Thyra, Earl Ragnar’s daughter (and therefore sister to Ragnar junior and to Uhtred, as well); Kjartan, Ragnar’s shipbuilder, and Kjartan’s son Sven, a thoroughly despicable sort and a couple of Superman-type other Danish kings/generals (there’s no difference in this day and age) like Guthrum and Ubba, and you’ve got yourself a TV series that goes and goes and goes.  I believe the customary adjective for such productions is “rollicking.”  It doesn’t hurt that Uhtred, Ragnar, Guthrum and Ubba are all actual historic figures.

I’ve only skimmed the surface of the characters in this saga.  Uhtred’s love interests are notable.  So too are the efforts of the priests who play a role in stressing the main cultural distinction between the Danes and the Saxons.  The Danes are disparaged as “pagans,” and given to partying hard in the here and now; the Saxons are handicapped by needing to be guided by an external code of behavior including self-denial (mis?)taken for virtue – and no small amount of hypocrisy.  Uhtred, although baptized as a child, rejects Christianity, yet is the model of a man whose word is sacred.  In contrast to Skorpa, for example, the quintessential Viking marauder, a cruel, deceitful and sadistic barbarian.

It’s these contrasts that make the characters so lively.  The endless clashing of swords gets tiresome, and the violence is pretty graphic.  So is the wretchedness of life in the first half of the first millenium at a time of endless war, the mud, the pigs and the chickens who invade your living space when you can get them, the diet of vegetable broth when you cannot.  Apparently there is no way to keep your fingernails clean.

Historically, of course, Alfred was known as “the Great” because he eventually had considerable success in driving out the Danes, and negotiating a peace with those who remained.  Guthrum converted to Christianity, for example, and Alfred is today venerated by the Anglican Church as a Christian hero with his own feast day, October 26.  (The pope wouldn’t canonize him, but this is probably the next-best thing).  It’s not giving the plot away, I hope, to tell you the story of Alfred’s accomplishments are not central – the main character of The Last Kingdom is Uhtred, after all.  And this season stops short of telling you whether Uhtred made it home to achieve his goal of reclaiming Bebbanburg.  Nonetheless, the yearning for home is palpable, and gives the story a driving force.

Inevitable, I suppose, with history-for-television is historical inaccuracy and ambiguity.  What parts of the story correspond to actual historical events – Alfred’s grand stand at the battle of Edington in 878, for example, where the combined forces of the Saxons under Alfred defeat Guthrum and the “Great Heathen Army” – and what parts are fictionalized are not always evident.  Nor do they matter, of course, to most people, I suspect, who will watch the story for its romance and its adventure, and see historical reality as little more than icing on the cake. 

The acting is excellent.  It helps that the series has a whole host of experienced talented actors, many of them familiar faces, including Matthew Macfadyen, who plays a cameo role at the beginning as Uhtred Senior, and the noted Dutch actor Rutger Hauer, who plays Ravn, the father of Earl Ragnar (also a minor role).  The lead role of Uhtred is played by German actor, Alexander Dreymon (born Alexander Doetsch), who grew up in France, Switzerland, Germany and the United States and speaks English with a British accent in real life, for some reason.  Several Swedish actors are involved, including Thomas Gabrielsson, who plays Guthrum and Jonas Malmsjรถ, who plays a terrifying Skorpa.  Actual Viking actors, in other words.  And let’s not forget Rune Temte, the Norwegian actor who plays the other Viking warlord Ubba.  Brilliant idea, don’t you think, getting modern-day descendants of Saxons to play Saxons and descendants of Vikings to play Vikings? The role of another Saxon-turned-Dane Brida, Uhtred’s fellow slave, and first love, is played by Austrian actress Emily Cox.  Mildrith, Uhtred’s (Saxon) wife, is played by British actress, Amy Wren.  Other notables are the Shakespearean actor David Dawson as Alfred and Adrian Bower, also British, plays Leofric, Uhtred’s loyal friend he is forced to engage in a battle to the death with.

The production was filmed in Hungary, for affordability.  Since there are no structures still standing from those days, entire villages – including the town of Winchester – had to be built from scratch.  Great detail was given to costuming, getting the homespun just right, and other details right down to face-painting.  A minor liberty was taken with the wooden shields.  They were modified in shape so you can distinguish between the opposing armies.

Jolly good history.  It will send you to Wikipedia to read up on the Danelaw.  Or maybe cause you to reflect on the notion of immigration to Britain.  First Romans moving in on the Celts/Britons, then Saxons, then Danes, then Britons from France in 1066 whose ancestors were Celts. Some sort of cosmic justice, maybe, watching the Celts-turned-French now getting control of their land back. And, of course, in the end, nobody actually displaces anybody.  Mostly they all hop into bed and make new races of folk every so often.

Tell the history by means of giant blonde men with face tattoos busting in and looking for the family silver and you’ve got a rollicking good binge-watch in store.  Keep your Netflix streaming current. Positively rollicking.

*Note that while in Britain “Saxon” (to the Celts) means English, on the continent it means German.  The Finnish word for Germany is Saksa.  In Estonian, it’s Saksamaa.  The Romani (Gypsies) call Germans Ssassitko temm.
**Here it’s the Danes who have tattooed faces and bodies.  It’s worth noting, I think, that the word “Briton” seems to have originated from the Greek Prittanoi, their word for the Celts, from the Celtic word to cut or carve, i.e. tattoo. 

photo credit: Please note that none of the folks in this photo have anything to do with the TV series, The Last Kingdom, as far as I know.  But I'll wager they've stopped frolicking on the beach at Norfolk long enough to rollick with the rest of us.