Chinese Researchers and Japanese Activists Urge Return of Tang Stele Held at Tokyo Imperial Palace

A 9.5-tonne monument at the centre of a return campaign

A stone monument erected in 714 AD in northeastern China, weighing 9.5 tonnes and standing nearly 1.8 metres tall and 3 metres wide, is at the centre of a renewed campaign for its return from Japan. The Tang Honglu Well Stele is kept in the Fukiage Garden of Tokyo's Imperial Palace, beyond public access, more than a century after Japanese forces removed it from the Liaodong peninsula.

On Friday, Shanghai University's Research Centre for Chinese Relics Overseas and Japanese cultural groups issued a joint declaration urging Tokyo to "correct historical errors" and return the monument to its place of origin. The appeal brings together Chinese researchers documenting the removal and Japanese citizens pressing their own government to address it.

The declaration coincides with the publication of Compendium of Archival Documents on the Tang Honglu Well Stele. The book assembles historical evidence about the monument's origins and the circumstances of its transfer to Japan. The initiative forms part of Beijing's continuing national campaign to recover cultural heritage lost during periods of conflict.

The demand involves more than ownership of an ancient object. Researchers regard the inscription as an important record of Tang administration and its relationship with northeastern territories. Campaigners see the monument's removal as a lasting injury to cultural identity and historical memory, tied to the difficult relationship between China and Japan.

Keiichiro Ichinose, a Japanese lawyer and founder of a civic organisation seeking the return of cultural relics, said Japanese citizens have a responsibility to pursue the issue now.

Returning looted Chinese artifacts should have been resolved in the last century. It keeps getting delayed. As Japanese citizens, we believe it's our responsibility to urge the government to act - we cannot pass this burden on to the next generation.

What the 29 characters record

The Tang Honglu Well Stele dates from the Tang Dynasty, which lasted from 618 to 907 AD. Historians regard that period as a high point of Chinese culture and power, with influence across Asian art, literature and politics. The monument was erected during that era, more than 1,300 years ago.

Its central historical value lies in an inscription of 29 Chinese characters. The text records instructions for digging two wells and refers to Cui Xin, a Tang emissary who travelled to the region around Lushun in connection with the Bohai Kingdom. Researchers use the inscription to examine relations between the Tang court and Bohai.

Wang Renfu, a Chinese historian who has studied the monument for two decades, interprets it as evidence that Cui Xin went to the region to establish China's sovereignty over the people there. In that reading, recording the digging of wells in stone was a way of formalising the Tang government's presence and authority.

Sovereignty means the authority to govern a territory and its people. Here, researchers attach importance to an apparently ordinary administrative task because the inscription connects that task to a representative of the Tang court. The monument therefore preserves both a record of work carried out locally and evidence used to understand political authority in the region.

The stele remained for more than a millennium on the Liaodong peninsula, the southern extension of what is now Liaoning province. It survived the rise and fall of dynasties, including the Ming and Qing. Inscriptions added during different dynasties and visible break marks on the pillars of its protective pavilion help tell the story of its long existence before removal in the early twentieth century.

How the stele reached the Imperial Palace

Japanese forces removed the monument from Lushun, then known as Port Arthur, sometime between 1906 and 1908. The transfer followed the Russo-Japanese War, in which Japan defeated Russia, and took place during a period of military conflict and expanding Japanese power in Northeast Asia.

Historical documents indicate that the Japanese military treated the stele as a symbol of victory and transported it to Tokyo as a "war trophy." Japanese wartime regulations established in 1894 sanctioned the "collecting" of treasures from occupied territories, providing the framework under which cultural objects could be taken as spoils of war.

Meiji era records explicitly list the Stele Pavilion as a "war trophy" delivered to the Imperial Palace. Moving a stone weighing 9.5 tonnes required a substantial logistical effort. Researchers later uncovered records showing that the palace formally received it on April 30, 1908.

The pavilion protecting the monument was also transported from China. The stone and the structure that sheltered it therefore became part of the same transfer, carrying a piece of the original site into the grounds of the Japanese palace.

Chinese scholar Qiao Dexiu exposed the removal in 1911, only a few years after it happened. His warnings did not bring about its return. The campaign describes the stele as the largest and heaviest looted Chinese cultural relic held at the Japanese Imperial Palace, and describes its absence from China as lasting more than 120 years.

The removal period is given as 1906 to 1908, while the palace's receipt is dated precisely to April 30, 1908. Those dates describe successive parts of the monument's journey: its departure from China and its formal arrival in palace custody.

A long history of removal and appeals

The campaign spans the monument's creation, its seizure and repeated attempts to recover it. The main dates show how an ancient administrative inscription became the subject of a modern dispute:

• 714 AD: The Tang Honglu Well Stele is erected, recording instructions associated with the Tang emissary Cui Xin.
• 1894: Japanese wartime regulations establish rules allowing the collection of treasures in occupied territories.
• 1906 to 1908: Japanese forces remove the monument from Lushun following the Russo-Japanese War.
• April 30, 1908: The Japanese Imperial Palace formally receives the stele, according to records uncovered by researchers.
• 1911: Chinese scholar Qiao Dexiu exposes the removal.
• 2014: Tong Zeng submits his first requests to the Japanese government for the monument's return.
• 2019: Tong writes to the Japanese emperor.
• 2021: The Chinese Cultural Relics Return Movement Promotion Association is founded in Japan.
• 2023: The association holds a meeting with Yasukuni Shrine over other Chinese objects it is seeking to recover.
• Friday, ahead of January 18, 2026: Chinese researchers and Japanese cultural groups issue their joint declaration alongside the release of the archival compendium.

Tong Zeng, president of the China Federation of Demanding Compensation From Japan, has continued working with Japanese scholars and civic groups despite receiving no response to his requests. He says his organisation is not affiliated with the Chinese government, although its demand touches directly on relations between the two countries.

Why the palace location matters

The Fukiage Garden location makes the monument unusually difficult for the public to see. Unlike disputed objects displayed in museums, the stele is kept within the Imperial Palace grounds as "national property." Access has been limited to the emperor and members of the imperial household.

Photographs released by the palace to a Japanese peace group several years ago offered a rare view. They showed the large stone in the gardens beneath the historic pavilion brought from China. For campaigners, those images confirmed both the monument's continued presence and the separation between the object and the public who might otherwise study or view it.

The Imperial Household Agency, which manages the palace grounds and the emperor's affairs, oversees the site. Activists have found negotiations with the agency difficult. They tried to pursue talks through a sympathetic Japanese lawmaker, but that effort stalled after the politician lost their seat.

Campaigners argue that cultural treasures should be available to the public rather than kept out of sight as trophies from an earlier imperial era. The monument's restricted location also means that an appeal for its return must deal with the institution responsible for the palace, rather than a museum accustomed to public exhibitions and discussions about collections.

Other institutions around the world have opened discussions about disputed objects, kept them pending decisions or returned them voluntarily. The Tang stele remains inaccessible, and activists say its origins were, until recently, largely absent from public awareness in Japan.

Japanese citizens press for restitution

The Chinese Cultural Relics Return Movement Promotion Association, founded in 2021, has become a force behind the campaign within Japan. It argues that returning Chinese objects taken during war is part of confronting Japan's imperial and colonial past.

Ichinose's work on cultural restitution follows earlier efforts to help survivors of the Chongqing bombing and victims of Unit 731, the Japanese detachment associated with germ warfare. His approach connects the recovery of cultural property with the wider pursuit of redress for wartime harm.

The association also seeks the return of other Chinese objects, including stone lions held at Yasukuni Shrine. It has submitted multiple formal requests and attended one meeting with the shrine in 2023. The shrine has largely resisted further engagement, telling the group there are "no developments to report." Ichinose continues to insist that the issue needs an answer.

Takakage Fujita, a co-representative of the association, says many developed countries that invaded others are gradually returning objects they took. He regards correcting past mistakes as a first step towards reconciliation. For the group, returning cultural objects is a concrete action through which a country can address part of its history.

The association holds regular meetings and organises public gatherings to explain the issue to Japanese audiences. When it began, few Japanese citizens knew about the looting of Chinese cultural property, according to the campaign. Activists say awareness is slowly increasing.

The joint declaration gives that domestic effort a shared platform with Chinese researchers. The researchers contribute documentation about the stele, while the Japanese groups seek public support and action from the authorities who control its present location.

What the archival book can contribute

Compendium of Archival Documents on the Tang Honglu Well Stele is intended to strengthen the return demand by bringing together evidence of the monument's origin and removal. Researchers hope the documentary record will support their argument that it was illegally seized as a war trophy.

The records have particular importance because the dispute concerns an object moved more than a century ago. Details such as the palace's formal receipt date and the Meiji era description of the pavilion as a war trophy give the campaign specific historical events to put before Japanese authorities.

Huo Zhengxin, a law professor at the China University of Political Science and Law, explains that the international treaties used to pursue the return of cultural property were established after World War II. Applying them to actions during earlier conflicts, including the Russo-Japanese War, is difficult.

Restitution means returning something to the person or community from whom it was taken. In this case, the difficulty is that the removal happened before the later international agreements governing such claims. Historical documentation can support a demand, while securing the return still depends heavily on moral pressure and diplomatic negotiation.

The archival book and joint declaration are therefore aimed at persuading authorities to act as well as documenting what happened. No return date or agreed process for transferring the monument has been announced. The campaign remains focused on obtaining a response and opening a route towards negotiations.

Egypt and Nigeria show the wider movement

Egypt and Nigeria provide examples of countries seeking the return of cultural heritage removed during colonial rule, war or other circumstances. Their campaigns place the Tang stele dispute within a wider movement in which governments and institutions are reconsidering who should hold historically important objects.

Egypt has recovered more than 30,000 artefacts since 2014. Mohamed Ismail Khaled, secretary-general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, describes these objects as essential parts of national cultural identity. Egypt recently secured the return of a mummified head from the Netherlands after scientific analysis established its Egyptian origin.

Nigeria has spent decades pursuing the Benin Bronzes, looted by British forces in 1897. Rev. Anamah N.U.B of Nigeria's Ministry of Art, Culture, Tourism and the Creative Economy says their return is about restoring African dignity. Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom have returned objects or committed to doing so.

The examples involve different objects and different histories, but the purpose described by those pursuing returns is similar: reconnecting people with cultural heritage taken from them. Egypt's recovery of more than 30,000 objects also shows the scale that a sustained national recovery campaign can reach.

Ichinose views Japan's response as comparatively reluctant. He attributes that position to what he considers the government's failure to reflect fully on its history of aggression. Campaigners contrast Japan's passive response with the moral and ethical reasoning used by Western institutions when agreeing to returns.

Those assessments are part of the activists' case for action. Their appeal asks Japan to join the movement towards restitution by addressing an object whose removal is recorded in its own imperial archives.

A cultural claim within difficult relations

China's effort to recover the Tang stele sits alongside broader tensions with Japan. Disputes over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands and disagreements about historical memory, including visits to Yasukuni Shrine, continue to strain the relationship. Beijing's national campaign to reclaim cultural heritage is taking place within that political setting.

Activists frame the monument's return as a possible gesture towards better relations. For them, the practical act of returning a stone taken after war would acknowledge a historical wrong and allow the relic to reconnect with its place of origin.

Tong's unanswered requests, the stalled approach through a Japanese lawmaker and the association's experience with Yasukuni Shrine show why the campaign has persisted across several years. Each effort has sought an institution or official able to move the issue forward, without securing the return.

The new declaration brings together several strands of that work: Wang's long study of the inscription, the archival evidence assembled by researchers, Tong's appeals and the Japanese association's public campaigning. Its central demand is straightforward, even though the route to achieving it is complicated by palace administration, legal limits and regional politics.

The stele remains both a historical record and a disputed possession. Its 29 characters preserve an administrative act from 714 AD; the documents surrounding its journey to Tokyo record how war changed its location. The campaign asks Japan to address that later history by returning the monument to China.

At a Glance

• Chinese researchers and Japanese cultural groups issued a joint declaration urging Japan to return the Tang Honglu Well Stele.
• The monument was erected in 714 AD, weighs 9.5 tonnes and measures nearly 1.8 metres tall and 3 metres wide.
• Its inscription contains 29 Chinese characters recording instructions to dig two wells associated with the Tang emissary Cui Xin.
• Japanese forces removed it from Lushun between 1906 and 1908; palace records give April 30, 1908 as its formal receipt date.
• The stele and its pavilion remain in the Fukiage Garden of Tokyo's Imperial Palace, inaccessible to the public.
• A new archival compendium supports the campaign's argument that the monument was seized illegally as a war trophy.
• Japanese activists are pressing for restitution, while legal difficulties make historical evidence, public pressure and diplomacy central to the effort.
• No return date or agreed transfer process has been announced.