Hello, and thank you for your reply.
Yes, I believe it to be Levantine, though the date
attribution surprises me. What leads you to conclude that it is so much newer?
I believe the deterioration to be correct as one can see how the
glass was not perfectly mixed when poured, for the silicates leaching out leave a sort of swirled deterioration pattern. Beyond this, some of it is so advanced that the
bottle didn't hold water when I got it, as it
had crumbled in portions (now repaired) due to the advanced deterioration. The base is rather flakey, and the
pitting and staining very uneven. It is difficult to replicate it without uniformity, so this all lends credit to its potential for being ancient. Beyond this, the three
types of "patination," as archaeologists incorrectly termed it, all appear correct for a dug
bottle. I've seen two
types replicated by
man, but all three together I have never seen. One can easily apply a mineral scaling. One can stain the
bottle and give it an oily sheen. But the flakey
iridescence is more difficult to reproduce, especially when it is separate from flakey
glass. Usually, an acid-dip just dulls the surface of the
bottle uniformly.
Thank you, and have a great day.