I often see bottles like these touted as
Roman, and
Yale university does show
bottle fragments that are pretty much identical in composition and technique as dating prior to a near-Eastern city abandoned in the 200s C.E., but I believe these to actually date 500 years newer: at 6th to 9th century C.E., making them
Byzantine or early
Islamic.
If
Yale were right, the above
bottle would date to the first century B.C.E. to second century C.E., but I disagree with them. I would date this one to the 500s or newer.
While many pages call them blown, I feel like they were
cast and then blown in some cases, as with this example:
The body is clearly three different pieces of
glass, likely pouring one atop the other, and finishing it off on the (now broken) top.
Now, as much as I'd like to believe this is an exceptionally early blown
Roman bottle, I just cannot think they are anything but
Byzantine and
Islamic. The
Romans seem to usually flare out the top of the
bottle, or leave it very thin. While some of the Eastern bottles I've seen also do that, and the
Byzantines as well, those with a drilled top seem to be primarily
Islamic.
Now, I also have a final question. Ignore the enamel-like
weathering on the teal-coloured body and see where the apple-green neck joins. It looks like a solder of some sort was brushed on. Is this a pewter or tin solder of some sort to
help strengthen the weld where they poured a different
glass batch into the mould? Or is it merely decorative?
Thank you for any assistance you can give.
Have a great day.