[FIRST OCCIDENTAL WORK OF CENTRAL ASIAN PEOPLES] Hunlarin, Türklerin, Mogollarin ve daha sair Tatarlarin tarih-i umumîsi. 8 volumes set. [i.e. History of the Huns, Turks, Mongols, and other Western Tartaraes]. Translator: Hüseyin Cahid [Yalçin]
JOSEPH DE GUIGNES, (1721-1800), Tanin Matbaasi, Istanbul, (1923-1924).
Original grey cloth bindings. Occasionally fading on the spines. Overall a very good set. Demy 8vo. (20 x 14 cm). In Ottoman script (Old Turkish with Arabic letters). 8 volumes set: (487,  p.; 512 p.; 446,  p.; 512 p.; 418,  p.; 500 p.; 531,  p., 377 p.).
Scarce first Turkish edition of this complete set of "Histoire generale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongols, et des autres Tartaraes occidentaux" (1756-58) by De Guignes who was one of the most prominent orientalists of the 18th century. His most famous and influential work is one on the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, Turkestan, and China. It was translated by Hüseyin Cahit Yalçin (1874-1957), who was a prominent Turkish theorist and his works and translations defending the idea of a homogenous nation became popular within Ittihat ve Terakki [i.e. the Party of Union and Progress]. It was published with the encouragement of Ziya Gökalp (1876-1924), one of the leading theorists of the subject, and edited by Mükrimin Halil Yınanç (1898-1961). Later, it was one of the occidental works which helped form the intellectual foundations of rising modern Turkish nationalism.
De Guignes is one of the first orientalists to discuss the etymological and historical geographies of nations such as Tatars, Mongols, and Huns in this work. He originated the proposition that the Huns who attacked the Roman Empire were the same people as the Xiongnu mentioned in Chinese records. This view was popularised by his contemporary Edward Gibbon in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The idea has been strenuously debated by central Asianists, including Maenchen-Helfen, Henning, Bailey, and Vaissière.
Guignes maintained that the Chinese nation had originated in Egyptian colonization, an opinion to which, in spite of every refutation, he obstinately clung. He published a number of articles arguing that Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese characters were related, one deriving from the other. Although he was mistaken in that, he is recognized for proving that cartouche rings in Egyptian texts contained royal names, a thesis he developed from a hint previously made by J. J. Barthélemy.
Contents: Great Tatarstan, Huns.; Genghis and the Mongols, the Mongol-China emperors, Khalka the Mongols.; China.; Huns and Western Turks.; Iran (Persia).; Konia, Aleppo, Damascus Seljuks, Syrian Atabegs, Kharezm Seljuks.; Tamerlane, The Mamluks of Egypt.; Turks, Iranian Seljuks.
Özege 8002.; TBTK 11730.; OCLC 12841603.