If you used objects to represent 5, 10, 100 stones, etc., and were capable of e.g. saying that 7 and 7 stones equal one 10-stone and 4 stones, you would have a

If you used objects to represent 5, 10, 100 stones, etc., and were capable of e.g. saying that 7 and 7 stones equal one 10-stone and 4 stones, you would have a compact representation of your number, and that would be the proper use of this algorithm. But note that this is different from what John H. Lienhard explicitly says: "the hole contains 224 stones". His version is completely pointless. None of us are objecting to the algorithm itself - yes, it is equivalent to long multiplication in binary, it has been known since ancient times, and there is nothing wrong with it. However, Lienhart has a) apparently misunderstood the point of the algorithm, and b) ascribed it to Ethiopian village "shamans", which gives one the mental image of Ethiopians standing around and watching a shaman manipulate hundreds of stones, instead of simply counting out the price - 7 for the first goat, 7 for the second, etc. This probably never happened, and would be stupid if it did; and yet people are coming here to defend this as an example of "Ethiopian ingenuity". What kind of "shamans" is Ethiopia supposed to have, anyway? Aren't they a Siberian thing? Ethiopia has one of the most ancient Christian traditions in the world, you know. I agree with some other posters that this whole thing is some kind of a politically correct cringe which somehow tries to compliment Ethiopians for something they have nothing to do with, and only ends up insulting them. And every reader's intelligence, to boot.