Liberty Street Economics

« Twenty-Eight Money Market Funds That Could Have Broken the Buck: New Data on Losses during the 2008 Crisis | Main | A Look at Bank Loan Performance »

October 11, 2013

Historical Echoes: Throwing Coins into a Fountain—Who Is Getting Paid?

Amy Farber

Do you throw coins into a fountain when you see that others have done so?  A comprehensive and thoughtful student project on wishing well use in Southern California has been posted on the internet by University of California, Irvine, anthropology professor Bill Maurer. The 2006 project bases its findings on interviews of people throwing coins into fountains and states that:

Although the exact origins of this practice are unknown, offering money to water is an old tradition that can be dated back to Roman-British and Celtic mythology. Since then, the tradition of making a wish with a coin has been passed down through generations by socialization, evolving from a religious ritual into a fun, yet superstitious, cultural practice in Southern California.

     Wishing wells or coins in a fountain: who or what is getting paid? By this question, we don’t mean who is literally taking the money. The answer to that question will vary by fountain. In Florida, according to a 2010 article from the Sun Sentinel, the funds may be taken by the maintenance company that cleans the fountain, pocketed by folks bathing in the fountain (assuming they have access to their pockets while bathing), or donated to charity. The Trevi Fountain in Rome, according to this blog post, “currently receives over €3,000 per day, and the proceeds assist with funding a market for Rome's poor.”

     But who or what is getting paid from the perspective of the thrower of the money? Some sort of deity or spirit either associated with the fountain or temporarily “listening” through the fountain? If so, would this be called a financial transaction? According to the definition of “financial transaction” on businessdictionary.com—an “event which involves money or payment, such as the act of depositing money into a bank account, borrowing money from a lender, or buying or selling goods or property,” the wish would seem to qualify. The fact that payment has taken place does seem to presuppose the existence of a payee. (Could this be a new version of the famous ontological argument?)

     If it is a kind of financial transaction, can we assume that the more given in payment, the better the wish outcome? In the wishing well piece posted by Maurer, the authors note that in Coventina’s Well in northwestern England,

most of the coins found . . . were “low denomination bronze issues . . . . ” People who offered coins to the well chose coins that were either worth very little or nothing at all. This suggests that the economic exchange value of the coin is not equal to the value the coin had as a gift to the divine power.

     However, the interviewers did find people who believed that the higher the coin value, the better the wish-granting “service”—that is, the more likely their wish will come true.

     Any online wishing wells? A simple Google search will find you many. One site has you use your cursor to “lift” a coin and “drop” it in a well. No site seems to take real money.



Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author.




Amy Farber is a research librarian in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.


Posted by Blog Author at 07:00:00 AM in Historical Echoes
Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Both copper and silver kill germs in water. So throwing coins in a fountain, which was the drinking water source, would bring real protection from illness. They chemically sterilise the water. Those who's fountains were well decorated with small coins would be luckier, disease free, than any others. Some superstitions are scientifically well founded.

Leviticus in the Bible mandated silver containers for all the food in the tabernacle and temple. People knew all this in the Medieval period. Today we know why it worked, copper and silver ions disrupt bacterial membranes and metabolisms. Back then they just trusted that God had a good reason.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About the Blog
Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from economists working at the intersection of research and Fed policymaking.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.

Upcoming Posts
Useful Links
Feedback & Comment Guidelines
Liberty Street Economics invites you to comment on a post.
Comment Guidelines
We encourage you to submit comments, queries and suggestions on our blog entries. We will post them below the entry, subject to the following guidelines:
Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1500 characters.
Please be quick: Comments submitted more than 1 week after the blog entry appears will not be posted.
Please try to submit before COB on Friday: Comments submitted after that will not be posted until Monday morning.
Please be on-topic and patient: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post. The moderator will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, or threatening; obscene or vulgar; or commercial in nature; as well as comments that constitute a personal attack.  We reserve the right not to post a comment; no notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will not be posted.
Archives