Valerija Lešnik Pokopališče pozabljenih predmetov ali usoda ptujskih arheoloških ...
Zbornik 2017 Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj-Ormož
the same concept throughout all these years, the then curators and their outside collaborators worked hard to enlarge and modernise them, and thus managed to uphold the city’s reputation. A significant step away from the tradition and professionalism in terms of preservation and presentation of the Museum’s archaeological heritage was made in Ptuj at the beginning of the 21st century, or more precisely during the period when Ptuj was partner city in the European project of European Capital of Culture 2012. That was the period when the archaeological collections were closed down not because of the so-called force majeure or recession measures, but because of the incredible easiness with which one of the most important Ptuj monuments – the church nave of the former Dominican monastery – was being restored. The state and city’s authorities of that time simply did not care where the archaeological collections were being moved, for the end justified the means, that is to become the European capital of culture at all costs. Experts working in the fields of culture protection and history of arts merely performed their administrative duties, which can be defined as a superior capability to manipulate all possible details, and finally won over a common sense and sound judgement. They did not realise that with the planned renovation of the monastery, the then city’s authority placed the importance of the monastery, museum and archaeological collections far behind the economic interest of a future congress-cultural centre which is completely devoid of public interest, and also well behind the importance of Ivan Potrč Library and Ptuj Historical Archives, both of which had equally sprouted from the Museum Society, but were given new premises before they had to leave the old ones. Thus, and enormously deep abyss was created into which was moved the oldest museum collection, which until nowadays has not been able to find its place within the urban structure of the city nor in the existing cultural infrastructure managed by the Museum. The Museum experts, who were not capable of any personal or professional revolt, not even in providing true feedback and information about certain dominant individuals whose actions caused serious damage to the monastery and the Museum, will have to look deep in the mirror and admit that its reflection is not due to the broken glass. They will finally have to admit that they are far less successful in accomplishing their mission than their predecessors.
57