We ordered all four books about the lost tribes and we have read three with great pleasure. With all the research and proofs in them, you certainly cannot speed read!
One question. In book three, you show that the word Pehlevi or Pahlevi means Parthian. We wondered why you did not include reference to the former Shah of Iran? His name? Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi!! What incredible proof of Parthian influence to this day! He died in 1980. I was aware of this because of a special assignment in Iran in 1973. You can confirm this at: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezashah/mohammad_rezashah.php.
Your observation is both astute and accurate.
As the link cited in your letter notes, the Shah of Iran gave himself the title “Shananshah,” which preserves the Parthian royal title of “king of kings.” That title was most apropos for Parthian monarchs who ruled over a feudal system of subordinate kings, many of which were blood relatives of the overall kings. As my book points out, the Parthian feudal system was transplanted into Europe when its people migrated out of Asia into Europe (as Goths, Germans, Saxons, Vandals, etc.) after the fall of the vast Parthian Empire circa 227 AD.
I’m old enough to remember the rule of the pro-American Shah of Iran and I recalled his “Pahlavi” title. I almost used it in my book, but decided against it for this reason. It was unclear in my mind whether the Shah of Iran was claiming a literal descent from Parthian kings or whether he was simply preserving a titular title from the ancient history of monarchs who ruled over Iranian territory. Book deadlines being what they are, I lacked time to research that particular point and did not return to it before my book, Parthia, The Forgotten Ancient Superpower, went into print.
However, thank you for your well-made reminder on this fact.