Does anyone know why so many Indo-European languages make association between "hearing" and "belonging, protecting"? It is not only Nors. tilhøre, Germ. gehören, Dutch behoren, but also in some Slavic languages (like Bulgarian) the verb for 'to hear' can also mean 'to protect'...
I suspect it's something along the lines of that which hears you - that which you can call upon - is yours. If you can call upon a resource, or a person, they are yours, figuratively; if a dog listens to you, it is yours. We are animists until taught otherwise; the implication is of a relationship between agents, rather than an agent possessing a thing. The oldest form of wealth was livestock: something yours, to keep and to guard.
Norwegian has phrasal verbs such as "å høre til" if that is what you mean. Sometimes you can move the preposition to the front of the verb and join them and get a verb such as "å tilhøre" in this case, which means the same. Note that it might not always mean the same, often it has a more formal or abstract meaning.
There are a couple of other prepositions that also bring a sense of belonging to 'hører', but have more specific uses. Neither of these can be used as prefixes:
å høre hjemme = to belong (somewhere)
å høre sammen = to belong together, be two parts of the same thing
Correct me if I'm wrong - I think this this implies that the object in questions has a sense of belonging to a museum--like it senses that it should be in a museum. It's a bit too close to a mistranslated English idiom. Like, "Your scarf is so beautiful, it belongs in a museum." It's as if the scarf knows that it should be in a museum because it senses "home" there. "Det hører til et museum," implies more that "It belongs to a museum." "Det tilhører et museum," implies that there is a specific museum that it belongs to, but it's not being named.
Native speakers want to weigh in on this?