How did Ancient law deal with someone returning after being presumed dead? Could they get their belongings back? What about if their spouse remarried?

Great question!

I would like to bring up some Near eastern law codes. I, like lots of people here, LOVE LOVE LOVE ancient Rome and Greece. I also feel that near eastern history is overlooked.

The Middle Assyrian Law Code states:

If a woman has gotten married, but the enemy has captured her husband, and she has neither father-in-law nor son, she is to remain faithful to her husband for two years. If, during those two years she has no food, she is to come and make a declaration, then she will become a ward of the palace. Her ………is to support her and she will work for him. If she is a peasant’s wife, she ………… is to support her and she will work for him. If her husband had a field and a house in the city as a fief, she is to report to the judges, “I have nothing to live on.” The judge is to make inquiry with the mayor and city elders, and since he had a field in the city as a fief, they will acquire the field and house, in exchange of two years support, and lease them to her. They will provide a contract and she must live there for two years, after which she may go and live with a husband of her choosing; they will provide her with a certificate of widowhood.

If her missing husband later returns to the country, he is to take his wife back (even though she remarried), but he will not lay claim to the sons she bore to her later husband, rather the later husband is to keep them. He may recover his field and house which were acquired by the state in order to pay for her maintenance, by repaying the cost of the lease (unless he rejoins the king‘s armed service). If, on the other hand, he does not return, but has died in another country, the king may reallocate his house and field as he desires.

Marc Van De Mieroop in his A History of the Ancient Near East describes social rules and laws as of Assyria as very strictly regulated and austre especially for women.(pp173)

The Code of Hammurabi states:

If a chieftain or man be caught in the misfortune of the king (captured in battle), and if his fields and garden be given to another and he take possession, if he return and reaches his place, his field and garden shall be returned to him, he shall take it over again.

If a chieftain or a man is captured on the "Way of the King" (in war), and a merchant buy him free, and bring him back to his place; if he have the means in his house to buy his freedom, he shall buy himself free: if he have nothing in his house with which to buy himself free, he shall be bought free by the temple of his community; if there be nothing in the temple with which to buy him free, the court shall buy his freedom. His field, garden, and house shall not be given for the purchase of his freedom.

If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.

If any one be captured in war and there is not sustenance in his house, if then his wife go to another house this woman shall be held blameless.

If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to her husband, but the children follow their father.

If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to another house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back: because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.

I'm not sure about Hittite Law or other near eastern law codes, maybe someone with more knowledge will come along!

I don't know of any specific examples of the law being applied. I'm hesitant to add more to this beyond the obvious that these societies cared a lot about property, paternity, class and societal structure. I think the laws speak for themselves.

One thing that is interesting to note is that during the Great Powers period (1500-1200 BCE) a large issue was not people returning to reclaim their belongings or spouses but being returned by force after having fled outside of a state.

For example after the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BCE the Egyptians and Hittites signed The peace treaty between Ramses II and Hattusili III probably in or around 1259 BCE.

Lets look at some of the things it says, Hittite version followed directly by the corresponding Egyptian version:

If a great person flees from the country of Hatti and if he comes to Reamasesa, the great king, king of the country of Egypt, then Reamasesa, the great king, the king of the country of Egypt, has to take hold of him and deliver him into hands of Hattusili, the great king, the king of the country of Hatti.

[If any great man of the land of Egypt shall flee and shall come to] the great chief of Kheta, from either a town [or] /// of the lands of Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt, and they shall come to the great chief of Kheta, then the great chief of Kheta shall not receive them, (but) the great chief of Kheta shall cause them to be brought to Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, [their] lord therefor.

If a man or two men who are unknown flee, and if they come to Reamasesa, to serve him, then Reamasesa has to take hold of them and deliver them into the hands of Hattusili, king of the country of Hatti.

Or if there flee a man, or two men who are unknown ///, and they shall come to the land of Kheta, to become foreign subjects, then they shall not be settled in the land of Kheta, but they shall be brought to Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt,

If a great person flees from the country of Egypt and he escapes to the country of Amurru or a city and he comes to the king of Amurru, then Benteshina, king of the country of Amurru, has to take hold of him and take him to the king of the country of Hatti ; and Hattusili, the great king, the king of the country of Hatti, shall have him to be taken to Reamasesa, the great king, the king of the country of Egypt.

Or if any great man shall flee from the land of Kheta, [and he shall come to] Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, (from) either a town or a district, or [any region of] those belonging to the land of Kheta, and they shall come to Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt, then Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, shall not receive them, (but) Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt, shall cause them to be brought to the great chief of Kheta. They shall not be settled.

If a man or two men who are unknown flee, and if they escape from the country of Egypt and if they don't want to serve him, then Hattusili, the great king, the king of the country of Hatti, has to deliver them into his brother's hands and he shall not allow them to inhabit the country of Hatti.

Likewise, if there flee a man, or two, or three, [who are not] known, and they shall come to the land of Egypt, to become foreign subjects, then Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, shall not settle them, (but) he shall cause them to be brought to the great chief of Kheta.

Now why would someone flee a state? Van De Mieroop basically puts it down to the upper classes/elites making life unbearable for the peasants, many of whom accumulated massive debts. As some of these peasants fled to other states or areas outside of state control the process continued as a labour shortage caused the elites to demand even more for their workforce. This is why controlling the movement of the lower classes was important and worked into peace treaties and correspondences between the 'great powers'.

Hope this helps.