This is a good list of archaeological discoveries that illuminate the Book of Daniel.
They do not, however, show that the book was actually written in the sixth century BCE. They don't even imply that.
Specialists are united in dating the book to the second century BCE, sometime around the Maccabean revolt.
Bryan Windle writes: "This late date is assumed largely on the basis of the presupposition of modern scholars that supernatural fore-telling of events is not possible," Sometimes people have made this argument, but it isn't very strong and it isn't the primary argument for a second century date. Who could know whether supernatural foretelling of events is possible or not?
It is fair, however, to invoke the Sagan standard that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I don't see anything like extraordinary evidence that Daniel was composed in the sixth century. Quite the contrary. But again, that is not the chief argument.
The primary argument for the second century date of Daniel is that the predictions in the book are meticulously accurate (one could even say supernaturally accurate) up to the Maccabean Revolt, but then they go wildly wrong.
All indicators are that the author was writing during the revolt, made predictions after the fact (the most accurate kind), then made real predictions. The real predictions, predictably, went wrong. I have made the case for this with one passage (there are others) here, here, and here.
The second-century writer did draw on earlier Aramaic legends, especially in chapters 2-6. More on that here, here, here, and here.
For more on the Nebo-Sarsekim tablet, see here and links. For more on the Esagila, see here. There is a new book on the Ishtar Gate by Helen Gries. (HT the Bible Places Blog again.) For more on the Nabonidus Chronicle and on Belshazzar, see here. There are many PaleoJudaica posts on the Cyrus Cylinder - start at the link in the last sentence. For Danielic apocrypha in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see here.
As for the Qumran fragments of the Book of Daniel itself, yes, some of them may have been copied within fifty years of the Maccabean Revolt and the book's composition. But does it hold up to argue that "There simply is not enough time for the book to have been composed, circulated and accepted as canonical in such a short period of time." Nope. Fifty years is a long time, not far off an average lifespan in antiquity.
I make no claim about canonicity in this period. It's hard to know what that would even have meant. But certainly the book could have been circulated and accepted by many Palestinian Jews as a genuine revelation quite quickly - in weeks or months during the revolt. And once a group of people accept a book as divine revelation, confirmation bias makes it very difficult to get them to un-accept it. It is entirely plausible that the book could have been widely copied, read, and believed in fifty years later.
The fact that some predictions went wrong wouldn't have had much effect. When prophecy fails, many followers will just adjust their understanding of the prophecy and continue to believe. There is some evidence that this was already happening in the early years after the publication of the book. It looks like there are recalculations of the end date appended to the book (12:11-12, cf. 8:14).
The whole history of the interpretation of Daniel involves each generation trying to make the predictions fit the current situation.
I am teaching an honours course on the Book of Daniel again this semester, so all these matters are on my mind.
Despite my criticisms, I am grateful to Bryan Windle for collecting this interesting archaeological material pertaining to the Book of Daniel.
Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.