It is true that returning historical objectives have been a matter of discussion. Some people believe that these artfacts hold deep significance with origin country, as they are linked with culture. Therefore, historical objects should be returned to origin country. I completely disagree with this statement. This essay will elaborate on the favor of globalty accessibility.
To commence with, it cannot be denied that these artfacts are easily accessible to large number of people, when they are showcased in foreign museums, because tourists from all around the world visited these museums. For instance London British museum is best epitome, where people from the all around the world visit to watch masterpieces or objects related to maharaja Ranjit Singh. It would be helpful for future generation as well as global exposure to a specific culture.
Furthermore, although these art factor represent the culture and traditions of origin country, it is not a good idea to return them to the origin country, because long distance increase the risk of damage during transit.This is because, ancient potteries and textiles are fragile. Additionally not all the countries have best infrastructure and funds to preserve these artfacts, because it requires alot of funds to maintain such objects. Sometimes economic situations leads to more damage. For instance, when Egyptian artfacts were returned to Egypt, half of the artfacts got damaged during transport.
To recapitalate, apart from the reason mentioned above, it can be clearly stated that these arts should be keep in the exact locations,where they are already preserved, while transporting them would not be much beneficial due to breakage or low funds.