The reign of Nebuchadnezzar was characterized by a recrudescence of architecture and busy years of building. The great king spent his enormous revenues in the construction of public buildings, and the land blossomed under his influence and sway. It was inevitable that the delvings at the site of Babylon should have brought to light some of the palaces and works of this great kingdom. It was the custom among the Babylonian builders to mark their public buildings, even as we do in our present culture. Upon the cornerstone of our city hall or court house, we engrave the name and purpose of the building, with the date of its erection. Over the doorways of our libraries and public buildings we chisel deeply into the building stones the name of the building and a brief dedication. It seemed to be almost providential that one of the first great marble palaces discovered in the ruins of Babylon was designated by the builders themselves as “The Place of Learning.” There captive princes were taught the learning of Chaldea. This one discovery reopened the whole case of the credibility of Daniel. His historicity was questioned primarily upon the grounds that _such schools did not exist_, and captives were not so treated. The foundational vindication of Daniel that emerged from the dust of countless centuries, caused a re-examination of the entire structure that criticism had reared against his integrity. The result was a complete vindication of Daniel and his record. The argument of philology also turned against its producers and showed that their case against Daniel was baseless. It has been shown that eight of the eleven alleged Greek words in Daniel’s manuscript are Sumerian and not Hellenistic. At one time the Sumerian language was the universal language of ancient diplomacy. As French was the language of international correspondence until recent times, when it has been largely displaced by English, so most of the courts of antiquity conducted much of their business in the Sumerian tongue. This custom, however, was discontinued by the time of the Persian conquest. If there is any value in the argument of philology for the dating of a manuscript, the evidence is conclusive that Daniel could not have written after the time of Nebuchadnezzar, for the Sumerian language was no longer in use from that time on.