You’re right that there are religious groups or communities that practiced marital ceremonies before written language, and the diversity of practices complicates a straightforward narrative. However, there are examples that support the idea that marriage, in its earliest forms(the earliest we have evidence for), was more of a social contract than a purely religious act.
While we lack direct written records, archaeological evidence from prehistoric societies (such as burial sites) suggests that early human relationships were often based on practical concerns like kinship and alliances. The arrangement of marriages for social or familial ties is reflected in some of the earliest human societies, where the main concern was often establishing paternity, lineage, and the passing on of inheritance.
In ancient Mesopotamia (circa 2000 BCE), marriage contracts were written on clay tablets, formalizing agreements between families for the purposes of property, inheritance, and alliances. These agreements were legal, not inherently religious, and emphasized the securing of wealth and societal status rather than religious sacraments. While rituals were involved, their primary function was to ensure societal order and legal rights.
Ancient Egyptian marriages were often seen as contracts between two families, focusing on the protection of women and the inheritance of wealth and land. While there were ceremonies and some religious aspects (such as invoking gods for blessings), the primary focus of marriage was legal and social stability. Marriage was also crucial for ensuring lineage and succession in royal and noble families.
Early Hindu marriage practices (dating back to around 1500 BCE) were initially seen as social and legal bonds. The Vedic texts mention marriage as a duty of the individual (and family) to uphold social order, rather than as a purely spiritual or religious ceremony. While rituals were involved, they were grounded in societal needs and ensuring continuity of the family structure.
In many indigenous cultures, marriage was often a social arrangement that involved ceremonial practices, but it wasn’t always religious in the sense that later Western traditions define it. For example, in many Pacific Islander and Native American cultures, marriage was primarily about forming alliances, securing resources, and creating stable family units, with religious elements incorporated as part of cultural rituals.
As I mentioned, the religious significance of marriage became more prominent with the rise of organized religions. This happened over time as religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism introduced sacred rites for marriage, turning it into a formal, often divinely sanctioned institution. Christianity, for example, formalized marriage as a sacrament around the 12th century, emphasizing procreation, faithfulness, and divine covenant, which later influenced many cultures around the world.
That said, I agree with your point that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to verify these assertions definitively, given the lack of concrete evidence for prehistoric or oral-only cultures. What I’ve shared here is based on the archaeological and historical evidence that we do have, which suggests that marriage’s origins were rooted more in social contracts than religious or spiritual beliefs. Religious elements, as we know them, were layered onto marriage over time as societies and belief systems evolved.
It was a bold statement, and I hope this clarifies it.