Ethnic Processes among Nomads

Dear all

I would like to offer you the topic which could be useful for understanding the history and development of ethnic groups of nomads?

For example Peter Golden writes:
Ethnic Processes in the Turkic World
It is apparent to even the casual observer, that the current demarcations of the Turkic peoples, in particular those in the Soviet Union, are the result of both complex historical processes and more immediate, specific political requirements. In some instances the differentiating "ethno-linguistic" criteria have, in reality, postdated not determined ethnogenesis. In others, minor variations have been exaggerated with a view towards separating otherwise closely related peoples. Thus, languages alone, in the modern era of nationbuilding, do not make nations, but nations, in a highly politicized process, frequently make languages. The antithesis of this approach has been to view the Turkic peoples as an undifferentiated or only very slightly differentiated mass. This, too, distorts historical reality. Any discussion of the ethnogenesis and formation of the Turkic peoples must bear in mind the extraordinary mobility of the pastoral nomads, the rapidity with which their political formations dissolved and reformed,often with a change of some of the ethno-tribal components. Any discussion of ethnogenesis must also bear in mind the distinction between land and people. Turkic groups, themselves often of diverse tribal origins and ethnic histories, became political masters of lands that had very complex ethnic antecedents. Onto the original base of a non-Turkic population (usually Iranian, in Central Asia), itself the product of various ethnic strata, were grafted several waves of Turkic peoples at different times. Some degree of amalgamation, assimilation occurred,producing, in essence, a new but often still far from homogeneous people. Reflections of disparate origins may be seen in the material culture as well.
Thus, the diversity of saddle arches used by a single Turkic people points to the variety of ethnic groups and subgroups that came to compose this people. The Ozbeks/Uzbeks provide one such example of a modern day Turkic people that has evolved, in a series of complex layers, out of a variety of Turkic and Iranian ethnics. Iranian speech is still a commonplace in "Uzbek" cities. One of the remarkable features of Turkic history is the spread of the Turkic languages. As the language of the military-political elite in Central Asia and the Near and Middle East, it spread considerably beyond its physical borders. Nomadic populations, given the limitations of the nomadic economy, were usually smaller than those of their sedentary neighbors. Non-Turkic peoples, or groups of them, adopted the language without much in the way of actual mixing, at least in the early stages. In Central Asia and the Middle East, this could involve populations of some size. Examples of this may also be seen in those groups that adopted Turkic speech but because threads that join Ottomans, Tatars, Ozbeks and more distantly the Chuvash.
There are also significant points of divergence. Some scholars have preferred to underscore the elements held in common, others the differences. Presentday political considerations have not been entirely absent in the positions taken. Levels of national or ethnic consciousness are always difficult to measure. These may vary from individual to individual within a group as well as from group to group. The attitudes of medieval people are even more difficult to assess given the gulf of time and dearth of sources. In the course of this work, we shall be looking for both the ties that bind and the meaningful differences that distinguish.

Sorry for my late answer, I thought that answer notification is turnned on.  It is very difficult to be more "informative" in such topics, because we should create some ideal structure, theory. We need it just because of absence of it at all.

Unfortunately I don't have time now, later I will be more informative