Hey, so I can’t answer for the connection between the Odyssey and the Ramayana as it’s not really something I know about (though it’s really interesting so I look forward to someone explaining it!). But for the second part of your question I can perhaps shed some light on the role archery - or more generally athletic competitions - played in the marriage traditions of pre-Classical Greece.

Among the aristocracy of pre-Classical Greece, competitions among suitors as a method of securing marriage were quite common. The story of the suitors in the Odyssey is arguably the most famous, but other such competitions emerge within the mythical tradition also (for example the marriage contests for Helen of Troy).

The reason behind elite males competing for marriage is tied to the broader purpose of marriage in early Greece. In an age before the existence of monetary wealth as a determining factor for social status - familial bonds and links (the oikos - family unit) were the most important mark of social rank (think in the Iliad and Odyssey of the importance of ones ancestors as a mark of distinction among the heroes - there’s no famous heroes who came from low birth but all were the sons of monarchs or nobility or gods/goddesses etc.). In the Odyssey to the best of my knowledge the suitors never actually explicitly say why they want to marry Penelope. They could very easily divide up Odysseys’ property and take it for themselves (and mention planning to do so on a few occasions), but more likely what they are seeking is the political and social rank that comes from marrying into the family. Therefore for a powerful father, it was important to arrange a marriage with someone worthy of establishing a link with; and this was one of the most important ways in which elites from across the Greek world established political, economic and social ties - unfortunately it doesn’t look like the women had much of a say in this decision (Penelope is a bit of an exception).

As to how suitors competed for the marriage, the most common method was by “bidding” by offering hedna or “bridewealth” - gifts given by the groom to the brides father when the marriage was agreed. Hector says that he provided “gifts” for Andromache in the Iliad (22.472), and the suitors in the Odyssey mention using this in an attempt to try and woo Penelope. On the flip side, when Agamemnon is trying to convince Achilles to rejoin the Greek forces he offers one of his daughters “without gifts” (Iliad 9.146) - suggesting this was an established expectation when a marriage was agreed.

However this was not the only method of competition, and on occasion suitors - as in the Odyssey (and in the Ramayana!) - would compete in athletic or other modes of contest to help determine the rightful groom. Outside of the mythological stories these are not mentioned a lot in the historical record, with one notable exception, mentioned below. As to why suitors may compete athletically (including archery) links to the purpose of athletic games in early Greece. Before the establishment of institutions such as the gymnasia or Olympic Games, individuals would compete athletically to demonstrate their physical prowess and superiority among the warrior elite. These were generally held at funeral games (such as Patroclus in the Iliad, 22.257-897) or special contests to honour guests (such as for Odysseus, Odyssey 8.97-255). As mentioned previously, this was in a period before currency, and so when we talk about bridal “gifts” we mean literal physical goods - so we might assume that athletic contests could also be used alongside other gifts to demonstrate someone’s distinct worthiness for marriage when most suitors would be turning up with very similar gifts.

However, with the growing importance of the Polis in the 7th and 6th centuries BC came the establishment of Panhellenic athletic games as an outlet for competition. This shifted the perception of athletic competition - an athletic victor no longer was representing their own personal worth and martial prowess through winning competitions but instead were representing their home-city, and the glory they earned was shared among the polis rather than just for the individual. Some scholars (Mann, 1998) have suggested that perhaps gymnasia were first established as a counter to this, providing a new space where the elites could compete with each other. Alongside this there was a shift from the groom providing bridal gifts in exchange for a hand in marriage to the father providing the groom with a dowry. Blundell (1998) argues that this was because the polis was beginning to take a more active role in determining how marriage functioned as well as the introduction of currency - by providing money in the form of a dowry to the groom it ensured the daughter was provided for whilst ensuring that the father’s most important property - his land, was not touched and could be passed on to his sons. It also protected the woman outside of the home, as if the marriage ended in divorce the groom would be expected to repay the dowry, thus acting almost as an insurance against the groom mistreating his wife as if he did the marriage could be annulled and the dowry had to be paid back.

With these two factors athletic contests for marriage were eventually phased out - as athletic glory was no longer an individual merit but was shared by the polis, and suitors no longer competed to cement family ties through marriage but instead would be sought out by the father and rewarded through a dowry. Furthermore because political power now rested in the polis rather than in individual families it suited aristocratic families to marry within their own community, thus it was easier for two families from the same polis to arrange a marriage with dowries etc. Rather than a lengthy and costly competition for marriage as happened in previous eras.

Now to the historical example I alluded to - there is one exception to this trend, the marriage of Agariste referred to in Herodotus (and on a personal level one of my favourite moments from ancient history). Agariste was the daughter of Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon. According to Herodotus in the late 7th century BC he held a contest to determine who would have his daughter’s hand in marriage. Suitors from across the Greek world came to Sicyon and competed in athletic games: chariot racing, wrestling, archery and other tests such as discussions and interviews. In the end an Athenian called Hippocleides was looking like the best candidate. However on the day Cleisthenes was to make his decision, Hippocleides got drunk at the banquet, got onto a table and started dancing by balancing on his head and waving his legs in the air (ancient breakdancing!?). Cleisthenes was so disgusted by Hippocleides behaviour that he marched up to the table, and said to him “son of Tisandrus, you have danced away your marriage”... Hippocleides snorted back “Hippocleides doesn’t care!” - according to Herodotus (6.128) “Hippocleides doesn’t care” became a proverb (similar to “who gives a shit!”).

As well as a great story this is important because it bucks the trend where athletic contests were becoming less popular as a determining factor in marriage contests. But this may be deliberate on the part of Cleisthenes, a reactionary measure against the institutionalisation of athletic games as a state rather than private activity, and the public rather than private glory that came with it. Because Cleisthenes is a wealthy tyrant, it serves his interest to model marriage courting on Homeric traditions, because like the heroes of Homeric legend the winning suitor stands to gain a lot through his family connection with Cleisthenes.

Hope this helps, I went on a bit of a tangent but I thought it might explain why athletic contests were part of marriage traditions in early Greece, and why they became less popular by the archaic and then classical period.

Nikephoros, Z. (2010) “Agariste’s suitors: Sport, Feasting and Elite Politics in Sixth-Century Greece”

Blundell, S. (1995) “Women in Ancient Greece” pp. 67-69.

Shapiro, H. A (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece” pp. 96-100