1. 1. Why this essay? It is customary for the author on return migration to complain about the lack of theoretical and empirical knowledge on his sub- ject. Three recent general handbooks on the sociology of migra- tion Jackson (1969), Jansen (1970) and Albrecht (1972), pro- duce together no more than 10 sources on return migration. The by Mangalam (1968), although extensive migration bibliography giving no less than 2051 titles, still comes up with no more than 10 sources. I t is true that not so many books and articles are de- voted exclusively to return migration: Appleyard (1962a, 1962b), Cerase (1967,1970), Committee . . . (1967), Davison, B. (1968), Dietzel (1971), Elizur (1973), Feindt & Browning (1972), Form & Rivera (1958), Frohlich & Schade (1966), Hernandez-Alvarez (1967,1968), Kraak (1957a, 1957b, 1958), Kayser (1972), Myers & Masnick (1968), Migration News (1969), Mc Donald (1963), O. E. CD. (1967a, 1967b), Patterson. H. O. (1968), Richmond (1967a, 1967b, 1968), Richardson (1968), Saloutos (1956), Stark (1967b), Vanderkamp (1972), Vagts (1960) and Wilder-Okladek (1969). But this does not imply that no further research has been done and that therefore every new student of return migration had to begin from scratch. In numerous studies on emigration, migrant labour, immigration, integration and assimilation, room has been made for a chapter or a paragraph on "those who re- turned" or "the migrant's return". I've found the demographical periodicalPopulation Index relatively useful in tracing the subject. 1. 2.