A critique of Raveenthiran’s “Reply to letter to the Editor: Tracing the origins of circumcision”

I am reluctant to continue the correspondence on the origins of circumcision, especially when the various hypotheses advanced all seem about as likely as each other, and as well supported (or not) by the scant and ambiguous evidence available. However, as I said in my previous letter [1], any such hypotheses should at least be supported by accurate information and sound logic. It was therefore with exasperation that I read Prof. Raveenthiran's reply [2] in which he ignores or unfairly dismisses my points, cites unreliable sources, and misrepresents me.