Five Frog House clan artifacts will remain at the Jilkaat Kwaan Heritage Center after the Alaska Supreme Court last month upheld a lower court’s decision.
In a memorandum opinion and judgment, the Alaska Supreme Court said the transfer of the artifacts—four carved house posts and a replica of a painted wall screen, valued at roughly $1 million—to the heritage center was in keeping with a settlement from a 1970s lawsuit.
“The 1978 settlement language thus indicates it was proper to order the objects transferred to the heritage center,” it said. “Any dispute about what should happen to the artifacts after transfer to the heritage center is not an issue resolvable in the context of the underlying 1970s lawsuit or this appeal.”
In the ‘70s, the Chilkat Indian Village and three Frog House clan members sued other members of the clan to stop them from selling the artifacts. The settlement determined the items belonged to all members of the clan and couldn’t be sold without the approval of all clan members. It also said the items would be temporarily stored at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau until they could be “moved to Haines or Klukwan for suitable, safe storage and use by all Frog House members.”
In 2018, the State Museum agreed to transfer the artifacts to the recently completed Jilkaat Kwaan Heritage Center in Klukwan, at the request of the Chilkat Indian Village, a decision some Frog House members disagreed with. They sued in an effort to prevent the transfer.
During oral arguments in September, the lawyer for appellants Sally Burattin, Patrick Philpott and Rosemarie Hotch argued moving the artifacts goes against the 1978 settlement because Frog House members don’t have direct control of the artifacts as only one member, Burattin, currently lives in Klukwan.
In an interview with the CVN in September, Chilkat Indian Village representatives disputed the claim, saying all house members have access to the items at the heritage center. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed.
While Burattin, Philpott and Hotch were all originally listed as appellants, only Hotch is listed in the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision.
“Two other individuals are named as appellants in Hotch’s appeal paperwork, but nothing in the record reflects that they sought to intervene or otherwise be a party or that they acted in any way as self-represented litigants in the superior court,” the court’s ruling states.