Some think that cultural artefacts should stay in their original countries, rather than be sold to international museums. Countries of origin of any artefact have strong reasons why they belong to them, but at the same time international museums provide opportunities for explorers all over the world. In my opinion, with strong policies of legal belonging and selling opportunities of artefacts, there is nothing wrong with its scatter across the globe, as long as culturally significant pieces are respected in their countries of origin
International museums provide opportunities to explore one culture in different parts of the world. The main function of museums or galleries isn’t stealing or bragging about having foreign culture heritage, on the contrary, it is about educating visitors about history and journey that the piece had gone through before appearing at its final location. In addition, interested enough explorers are not obligated to travel to one particular country, for instance, Italy, to get acquainted with Roman culture if the international museum nearby has a collection of Roman-rooted goods. So, such exhibitions’ collections allow more accessibility for gaining knowledge and financial savings.
However, some strong and influential artefacts are pieces of particular culture and preferably should to stay as a heritage at their original home. Some relics can play emotionally valuable role to the residents of one place. In this case, official ownership of a piece serves not as an exhibition object, but as a memorial and indication of the past. Although, sometimes it is hard to decide whether specific antiquity belongs to one country or another because of complicated past division of heritage, for instance, Roman and Greek legacies.
To conclude, the global distribution of artefacts can be beneficial if guided by clear legal negotiations, while culturally and emotionally significant pieces should remain in their countries of origin.