I've been visiting a lot of museums, and something struck me. Once you go past the Neolithic period, you barely see any agricultural or everyday life tools. I understand that wood and other organic materials get eaten by the passing of time more easily. So that explain the lack of clothes or fishnet. Where are the hammers head, plows and needles ? Is it just a display choice to attract more visitors or archeological sites are really lacking them ?
I can assure you there is absolutely no lack of everyday materials at archaeological sites. I have worked in museum archives with pounds upon pounds of utilitarians ceramic sherds with no identifying features or decoration. There's instances where all we care about is how many kilograms of household pottery or discarded stone flakes were excavated from a context. The exact rarity of objects will depend on the site. The site I've worked at most has very few chipped lithic artifacts (think arrow heads), but plain textiles, ropes, and cords can be found well preserved in most tombs. Elsewhere, projectile points are a dime a dozen, but there's no place at all for organic materials like cloth to preserve terribly long.
You're right about museum selection though. If you only have a certain amount of museum space and you can show exotic palace scenes, ceremonial knives, and cloaks with mythological monkey beings or some particularly round rocks, pointed bones, or literal trash ceramics that someone drilled a hole in to use as a spindle whorl? These domestic items are quite useful for the archaeologist, and can be interesting for the amateur history buff as well, but they don't exactly sell tickets or rally donors to support preservation and research efforts. My museum experience does differ from yours; I do remember many utilitarian objects at the last few historical exhibits I visited or put together. Once you get to a certain amount of available space or guaranteed visitors, you can begin to expand into the more "educational" displays. But in the end, hammer and axe heads aren't anybody's first choice to display.
I guess that really depends on the museum. A lot of museums I visited (mostly Europe) often have a great abundance of more common objects at display. I'm often grateful to find a museum with a nice mix of both. A lot of museums prefer the more common objects because they are in high supply and because they are more relatable to a lot of people. It makes history more real and understandable for many. Which is a good thing in my opinion. History is often still just a series of wars, atrocities and great names in popular thought.