It could be from any time period, it could be the on nomads in general or a specific culture, preferably not on Genghis Khan.
Coming from a BA in Manchu Studies here, hoping you'll forgive the "Sinocentric" bias: Thomas J. Barfield's "The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757" is getting dated (1989, paperback 1992) but is easily one of the sweetest single-volume histories out in in English, possibly because Barfield's background is in anthropology as opposed to traditional history, and the area (as in, the geographic region as well as the field of study itself) benefits immensely by not adopting the old-school standard 'Genesis of the State' kinds of approaches. The format is still extremely tight- it reads like a history- and immaculately sourced, albeit necessarily from mostly Sinophone texts.
More confined in temporal scale, Peter C. Perdue's "China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia" deserves all the praise it gets and more. As the subtitle implies, the focus is on the Kangxi-Yongzheng-Qianlong-era expansion of the Qing Empire into what is today the Xinjiang UAR and beyond. Like most texts that tend to get shelved into the "New Qing History" kind of categories, this is a good one for reflecting on what exactly "nomadic history" is supposed to mean. Less of a stunningly impressive tour de force and, to be honest, kind of a repetitive read is Johan Elverskog's "Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism, and the State in Late Imperial China." This is another good one for reminding ourselves that the Mongols, like all "ethnic groups" became defined "after the fact" and clean linear narratives of causes and effects and rises and falls will tend to fail to capture the big picture. Elverskog challenges the nature (but certainly not the scale) of the Qing Empire's previously accepted role in 'creating the Mongols,' and does so through a phenomenally wide-ranging selection of texts that few scholars writing in any language have ever dealt with.
Another neat one is Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt's "Liao Architecture" which is more archaeological in intent. There's still plenty of historical support for her assertions and a reanalysis of the Liao Empire's relationship with its neighbors. This book is cool by default for being just about the only sustained study of Khitan Civilization in the English language.
Then there's always René Grousset's "The Empire of the Steppes: a History of Central Asia," which was published in 1939 then first translated into English in 1970. I live in China and am only kinda peripherally aware of the state of English-language scholarship. Nicola DiCosmo is another author to look into, and there's always the religious studies angle to explore. Inner Asia is a tough area for historians because there's just such a lack of (non-religious) documentation to work with. Where there are historical texts available, these societies tend to be the relevant authors' "Other," and as such it's going to be hard to say too much with much certainty. If what looks like "revisionism" seems to be the name of the game in the field, this is probably part of why.
Hi there, I asked this question here previously and was rewarded with this link, to the UNESCO collection of the History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Might be useful to you: