Talk:Damalas

Conflict of Interest and Non-Encyclopaedic Style

The article seems to read more like a fanfiction promoting a fictional house of nobility than a genuine encyclopaedia article. It details and sources the well-researched history of Chios, but slips in parts about the Damalas family without any references at all. (With irreparable damage done and centuries old estates and riches lost, the Damalases would nevertheless attain great wealth and social status once again in less than half a century, for instance.)

What references there are, are in Greek - this makes it difficult for non-Greek speakers to verify the information they are reading, which is why we provide sources in the first place. I am unable to find any English sources on the Damalas family at all, outside of the few linked books which I cannot read but I suspect are again about Chios and not the Damalas family.

Additionally, the heraldic achievement shown appears to be a modern commission. I can find no evidence of such an achievement existing historically. I would question the display of the Byzantine arms on the eagle's sinister wing - I am no expert on Byzantine heraldry but displaying a state coat of arms within a personal coat of arms is highly uncommon. This again indicates that there may be a sizeable amount of fiction going on here.

I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done, but the whole article seems a bit fishy. Dreichh (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dreichh Yes the article could certainly use some minor touch ups in the formatting department. However this is not fictitious. This is concise, touching on the main point of contention here:

[1]https://greek_greek.en-academic.com/212613/%CE%94%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%AC%CF%82

This certainly is regarded as a noble house in Chios. Any native from the island can confirm this.

Unfortunately you will have to have access to these source books in order to see the depth that the article has documented. I have access to a good few of these source books.

Surprisingly, I would have thought that even the pictures in this article would show some amount of authenticity that this is a noble house. It's rather hard to fake a 14th century byzantine church... 2604:CA00:15C:A615:0:0:868:638F (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• This article is dubious. Part about Zaccarias is some way sourced, except nonsense about marriage of Centurione with Helene Asen. But rest is pure fiction, like totally unsourced posterity of bastard Jean, princely title etc. There probably is Greek family Damalas, but for sure totally unconnected to Zaccaria. Best solution is deleting of article as hoax. Yopie (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Yopie You have not read the sources. Please refrain from jumping to conclusions as this is not a hoax in any regard. Chios historian (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hello, please provide sources for your opinion, because in common sources is nothing supporting your claims. And, please, do not delete tags, becausethe article is disputed here.Yopie (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not understanding why this is being called into question when I have cited what sources hold the relevant information. Not being able to read the various languages of sources should not constitute that something is unverifiable or false. I know with the upmost certainty that the sources have not been reviewed, otherwise this would not be a discussion. Please help me understand the thought process here because it feels targeted. Chios historian (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think the point is that much of the stuff said about the Damalas family seems poorly sourced and rather exaggerated. I don't doubt that the Damalas family exists, but some of the stuff written in the article sounds too exceptional for the lack of sources - it sounds like a piece of fiction.

  The lack of English sources provided mean that it is difficult for readers to verify that this dubious-sounding article is genuine, which is contrary to the purpose of citing sources in the first place.

  Perhaps it would be made clearer if the surrounding information around Chios, which is largely superfluous and should maybe be in another article, was removed. This would make it much easier to determine what is adequately sourced and what isn't. Dreichh (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dreichh Ok, that can certainly be done. Perhaps it was my mistake to provide information that I believed to be relevant to the page. Mainly because there was no page that detailed the nobility of Chios.

  Once again, this could probably have been done better by creating that as a separate page, which I can do. However I was new to Wikipedia and it did not occur to me. I am used to stand alone articles that provide all that relevant information on the same page.

  It would be appreciated if the tag could be changed to "requesting readers of foreign languages to confirm sources", or something to that effect. This would be more accurate versus claiming it to be a hoax without having read the sources. Do you agree that this would be more fair? Chios historian (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Currently, I think the tags put in by @Yopie best reflect current consensus. To me, it appears you have been using alt accounts on Reddit and logging out of your account here on the Wiki to give the impression that others support your view. Hopefully I am wrong here, but it looks as if there is a major conflict of interest regarding yourself.

  A new page on Chios nobility would certainly seem the best way to go, and then we can see whether there are still issues with this article. If there are, I may ask some independent Greek Wikipedians to come and help review the article. Dreichh (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dreichh I must admit, I laughed reading this. It's almost as if this has transformed into a conspiracy. I do understand that there are people out there that want to prop up fake narratives and promote themselves. However I am unrelated to this family and I do not use reddit.

  I have been told that reddit is the source of these attacks, but I have only been told about it. I have not actually seen this for myself. I don't believe it to be constructive to engage in bickering there; my only concern is showing the validity of my work here.

  The closest that I come to this family is also being from the island of Chios. I can see why it may be viewed as a conflict of interest to work on a particular family, but it was the leading house during the time period I was researching. So logically I would start there.

  My fascination in this time period stems from the church of the holy apostles in Pyrgi (where my family comes from), which is in the article. The Damalases are it's founders and so I went from there and learned so much more. Please do not even attempt to dispute this fact as they are listed and represented as the churches founders in the frescos within the church. I have detailed this in the article. This is why I found it preposterous to have people saying that this was not a noble family...

  As I have stated, I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I will constantly work on the article. I have done so fairly regularly, constantly improving it.

  So once again, please refrain from jumping to conclusions. Not every great thing is a fantasy. Chios historian (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yopie Can you now conclude that my contributions have not been dubious? It would certainly mean a lot because I have spent much time researching this section of history. I would never make baseless contributions because it defiles the very history that I love. Chios historian (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Main points for clarification are

1. Sourcing of kinship between Zaccaria and Palaiologos. Both Bon (1969) and Topping (1975) are firm, that Centurione married unknown Asen lady, and proposed Helene died childless.

2. Bastardy or legitimacy of John Asen and his posterity. Yopie (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yopie I'm not quite sure whether you're stating or asking. But I will strengthen these points as requested. Chios historian (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack on you, and it isn't a request for you to make any changes. Yopie is saying what the first key points for change are, for all editors' reference. Dreichh (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dreichh Thank you kindly for clearing that up for me. How do you suggest that enhance my sources on these? These points are already covered with my existing sources and some are not anywhere online, but only in physical books. I can always take pictures of the specific pages, but how would I reference them? Is it appropriate to use an imgur link as a reference? Chios historian (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This should help with your concerns: [2]https://imgur.com/a/dfMOwqo Chios historian (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dreichh Can you now conclude that my contributions are not fiction? It would certainly mean a lot because I have spent much time researching this section of history. I would never make baseless contributions because it defiles the very history that I love. Chios historian (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on [3] (a rather well-referenced PhD thesis), the family of Damalas exists, and it appears that its possible kinship with the Zaccaria is a subject of local tradition and/or speculation by modern Greek scholars. But the exact connection is uncertain, while much of the content of this article depends on treating this as a fact. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Thank you very much for being able to read what I uploaded. The thesis that you mention is 4 volumes, somewhere over 1500 pages. However anything pertaining to this family is only towards the end of the second volume and beginning of the third volume. I have slowly been updating and citing specific pages, so if you see one that I have not uploaded in the link, please request that I do and I will. I had asked whether I could upload each page I cite as a link, however nobody wanted to answer me (this would be good to know). Presumably because they assumed malice, which simply isn't true. I love history and would never defile it simply to write an article that gains me nothing. Please forgive me for any previous errors I have made as a new editor and the certain future mistakes that I will make. Chios historian (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I do assume, in good faith, that there is no conflict of interest. But the current state of the article is problematic, as other users have pointed out above.

May I suggest something? Begin this article from scratch, using only sources you yourself have access to, and stick to what they say, without additional interpretations. For offline sources, be prepared to provide page scans to support the veracity of the references you provide. Write neutrally and dispassionately, and do not try to 'prove' how amazing the Damalas family is; that is not your job.

Also, do not copy from other articles, like Martino Zaccaria, without attribution; if you end up with half your article being copy-pastes from other places, with references you have not checked yourself, you are doing it wrong. Constantine ✍ 18:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas This means a lot to me, thank you. As for begining from scratch, I have slowly been doing this. If you see the edit history, I have been reshaping it to conform to what I have learned about Wiki. There is a great sounding article, and there is a Wiki article. I believe the restructuring is where a great deal of sources got jumbled. It is a lot to keep up with at times! Lastly, I will research the proper way to attribute content that already exists on Wiki. Chios historian (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, apart from Hopf (who really should not be used any more in the year 2023), the article appears to hinge on Argenti 1955 and Damalas 1998. Would you be prepared to scan/photograph the pages in question and upload them somewhere for verification purposes? Constantine ✍ 18:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Absolutely. Just to confirm, you did see the imgur link where I uploaded roughly 20 relevant pages correct? There is also Zolotas and definitely some others, but it will definitely take me some digging to find because most of the sources on this are not online. Not surprisingly. Chios historian (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chios historian I have, yes. For a work published in 1998, Damalas certainly uses extremely out-of-date sources, and the suitability of a work purporting to be about the economic history of Chios as a reference for the history of a family is dubious. Less charitably, one could also challenge the objectivity of the author himself, writing about the origins of his own family. I can verify, however, that the present article seems to follow this source.

Anyhow, Damalas cites that Benedetto I Zaccaria received the fief of Damalis on the Bosporus, among others to William Miller (Damalas p. 657, note 39). I have both the English and a Greek edition (in Lambros' translation, not the one Damalas used), and cannot find anything related to this. Damalas attributes this fief to Guy I de la Roche, but there is nothing recorded anywhere that Damalis on the Bosporus was his fief; I checked a number of sources, including the Tabula Imperii Byzantini volume on Bithynia. However, Damala (Troezen) in the Morea most certainly was a fief of de la Roche, as he was also the Lord of Argos and Nauplia. Damalas also cites Hopf for this, but the location he gives (Hopf p. 502) is a genealogical table, where neither Benedetto nor his son Paleologo nor Benedetto II are given any title that contains 'Damala'. Indeed, the term 'Damala' in Hopf's work is also always clearly connected with the Morea, nowhere is Damalis in Bithynia mentioned. There is a third source, a manuscript by M. Skarlatos, which I cannot verify. So the first connection claimed between the Zaccaria and the toponym of Damalis/Damalas is effectively disproven. The manuscript may provide some of the missing data, but I doubt its reliability; certainly not when set against the work of actual historians, whose content clearly does not verify the assertions made.

What follows in Damalas pp. 658–667 is largely a recapitulation of what Miller and Hopf write about the Zaccaria rule over Chios, and unrelated to the name Damalas. In p. 733, Damalas claims that "the second-born son of Martino, Centurione, after his brother Bartolomeo settled in Damalas of Troezinia in 1325, succeeded him as seigneur de Damala, in Damalas on the Bosporus" again citing p. 502 of Hopf, and Skarlatos' manuscript. This is complete nonsense. We know that Martino Zaccaria was made baron of Damala when he married Jacqueline de la Roche sometime before 1325, that Martino was lord of Damala until his death in 1345 (and not his brother Barolomeo), and that the title of 'seigneur de Damala' in this context obviously has nothing to do with Damalis on the Bosporus.

The problem with all of this becomes that according to actual RS, the Zaccaria are associated with the name 'Damala' most likely ca. 1325, and they were evicted from Chios in 1329 by the Byzantines, so how to tie the name to the island? In p. 734 Damalas claims that Centurione returned to Chios, or at least claimed back his lands there, as "protokomes Damala de Chio" in the 1345-1347 period, during the Byzantine civil war (as the regency over John V is mentioned). Some sources are given in p. 735. Of them I could check the following: the 'Libro d'Oro de Scio' (note 300), which is the work of Argenti, C. Pagano (note 301), and Hopf's work on the Giustiniani (note 303).

Argenti relies on Hopf, and claims that "the Damalases left the Peloponnese in the 13th century", as one of their members is attested in the Theme of Thrace in 1230, and refers to another "John Damalas" being at the same time at Kos. But we know that Damala as a baronial title did not come into usage until the 1250s, and was certainly not a family name. Like Damalas, Argenti mentions a treaty, signed in 1346 by the "protokomes Damala" with Simone Vignoso, published by C. Pagano's Delle Imprese E del Dominio Dei Genovesi Nella Grecia, an 1846 publication... In p. 270, Pagano does indeed cite a "Damalla protocomito de Syo". But the text of the treaty does not link this person with Centurione, nor provides any evidence for this supposition.

Hopf is used in note 303 to reference that the prestige of the "protokomes Damalas" was such that he assumed the defence of Chios and Phocaea. But p. 24 of Hopf's work on the Giustiniani mentions none of this, and does not list Chios or Phocaea among Centurione's titles, nor the name Damalas.

In conclusion, Damalas 1998 is confused about his sources, if not actively inventing things to link the Zaccaria with the name Damalas and Chios. I would not consider him a reliable source, period. Constantine ✍ 09:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Hello Constantine and thank you. I believe I still need to upload a decent number of pages to help you get a better idea of the work. Damalas died in 1992 and in 1998 his 1500~ pages, which he had been compiling since the 70's I believe, were given to the university of Athens' history department. There it received a peer review which is at the start of each book. This would certainly be helpful to read. It is recognized as an original work with original research, touching on previously unknown areas of history. So every source he uses should be considered important, as it's likely that the sources that are not readily available are key. As far as using it to invent some family history, I nor the peer review get that feeling reading this whole work. He seldomly brings up the Damalas family itself; only when relevant. The page that reveals how the Damala name comes into use from Zaccaria (this is now explained better in this article now) is in a footnote in the 4th volume when that time period was being covered and the information was relevant. If I were him, and trying to promote my family's connection to them, I would have put that more front and center. Also the fact that he himself never submitted it, but his prior students (explained at the end of the 4th volume) says something as well. But the peer review is certainly valuable to read. I will be uploading this along with the other pages that I have been citing recently. I am happy for you to see that I have not made this information up though as a few others have readily assumed. Chios historian (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chios historian: fair enough. But the verification of his references still fails in all cases that I was able to check, and the connection between the Zaccaria and the protokomes Damala mentioned in 1346 is, as far as I can tell, unfounded. Family or local tradition may have led him to suggest this and treat it as a fact (when writing about things dear to you, your bias may not even be conscious or deliberate), but the actual link is missing. Constantine ✍ 13:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas This is in the recent edit that I made yesterday that I was referencing. I stayed very, very close to the source as you suggested. In the next few hours I will be able to either update the current link or upload a new one that has every page referenced. Chios historian (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas I have successfully updated the link with additional pictures. Here it is for quick reference:

https://imgur.com/a/dfMOwqo

Is it acceptable to use this link as the URL for the relevant references? Or must they be individual links? Chios historian (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chios historian: no, do not provide the URL in the article itself: this is for verification among Wikipedians, and the uploaded files should be removed once work here is completed. Open publication would otherwise be copyright violation.

My main problem at the moment is this: fully half the article is about the Zaccaria family's history and the wider history of Chios in the 14th century, but since the connection between the Damala and Zaccaria is not evidenced (as best as I can tell, it is a local tradition in Chios, but it is not borne out by any concrete evidence), then these parts should be removed. From the available evidence, the article should start with something like "People bearing the Damalas surname are first attested in the 13th century, in Thrace and Kos. The first person bearing the name on Chios is attested in 1346, when the protokomes Damallas was a signatory of the treaty of the Chian archons with Simone Vignoso. Local tradition, and some modern historians, have linked the Chian noble family with the Genoese Zaccaria family, who ruled Chios in 1304-1329 and also bore the title of Baron of Damala (in the Peloponnese), but this connection is not established by evidence." Damalas' assertions about Centurione Zaccaria being this protokomes should be dismissed as there is zero evidence for this. Constantine ✍ 09:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Ok thank you, it seemed like a good idea to ask first. I can certainly change any parts regarding Protokomes (until/if I find the rarer sources and they confirm the link to Centurione).

Have you seen the section regarding Antonio where the relation is established? The only thing that is not known by me currently is which Zaccaria did his father descend from. Purely through process of elimination I believe it's obvious or at least worth mentioning who the likely candidate is. But I want to make sure the writing style is appropriate to reflect that in an acceptable manner.

Also I'd rather not loop in the aforementioned Damalas as they're not the family that this article is about. I can certainly include a little more information on them, but there is a distinction between the Genoese-Greek and the Greek Damalas. Chios historian (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify why I think that Damalas is unreliable here: no Latin baron, especially not the descendant of a house that ruled the island, would be content to be counted as merely one among the Greek Chian archons, and with the extremely lowly title of protokomes at that (ranking 75th out of 80 in Pseudo-Kodinos' work). It is clear that the protokomes was a local archon, and most likely a native Greek. Damalas' equation is an extraordinary claim that requires corresponding evidence; the works that Damalas cites do not contain any evidence to that. Constantine ✍ 10:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Yes I will certainly make note in here and notify you when I find the aforementioned sources. Whether it be that it confirms or finally debunks his idea on Protokomes. Chios historian (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Damalas Armorial Achievement.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for formatting assistance

This page requires editing to conform with Wikipedia's encyclopedic article style.

Chios historian (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Problems about the alleged relation between the Moreote Zaccaria and the Damalades

"According to Ventian records of people friendly to them, in 1450 there is a person listed as the "Archon of Ligouri Damalas"; Lygourio was a castle and settlement within the Barony of Damala. This was located near the seat of the barony, also called Damala. According to current sources, there are no other specifics as to the identity of this person."

>Although no source is given, this refers probably to a Venetian Senate decision dated 12 november 1456, published here and there. But the identity of the said person is stated on the document, so who is saying that "there are no other specifics as to the identity of this person"? Phso2 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Phso2 Would you be able to provide this to me? I have not been able to locate it. I am still looking infact. Thank you! Chios historian (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I will, but (without wanting to put the finger at you or anybody) could you please answer first my question about the source of the mentioned passage? Where did you read about this "person listed as the Archon of Ligouri Damalas in 1450"? Is it in Damalas 1998?--Phso2 (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Phso2 No it is not in Damalas 1998. But of course, no worries. Here you are:

https://argolikivivliothiki.gr/tag/stradioti/

There's some good information in there in general. I look forward to seeing what further information you have on the matter! Chios historian (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chios historian: Argoliki Vivliothiki is a nice site, and I have also used it for some more obscure topics, but I try to avoid using it as a reference, unless it reprints an article from an actual RS. For example, the article you link cites the Greek Wikipedia and wikivisually among its sources. This is not good. It is better to read the article, gain an idea about the topic, try and track down the more reliable works cited there (or other, better ones) instead. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a common habit among Greek history fans on the Greek WP and elsewhere on the web to follow a 'least-effort' approach and rely a) only on Greek-language sources and b) on free sources, which mostly are 19th-century works from Anemi or, even worse, blog articles. 19th-century sources have their place and use, but one must know when and where to rely on them and where not. It is important to approach any article written by a journalist or amateur historian that relies on such sources with extreme skepticism. Constantine ✍ 10:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Thank you for your input as always! I take your advice to heart.

Do you happen to have access to the cited book? "Παλαιά επώνυμα στη σύγχρονη αργολίδα" by Takis Mavros. Chios historian (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chios historian: The only thing I could find is this. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Yes I have seen this too, but it's unfortunately missing the study we're looking for. It appears that User:Phso2 may have it, so they may yet save the day! Chios historian (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas To answer your question on the revert you made, I recently went to the Koraes Library in Chios. There I confirmed that the Skarlatos manuscript was one of the main sources of Damalas 1998 regarding the family. I also found some of the same facts in the mastic museum which confirmed what Skarlatos recorded. This was concerning something important that was disputed here. It was regarding the fact of the Zaccaria receiving the area of Damala (Bosphorus) as dowry from marrying emperor Michael VIII's sister. This is important for showing the earlier use of the "Damala" moniker.

The manuscript is titled "Archontology of the House of Damalas" so it is probably one of few, if not only, studies of just this family. All the studies we have discussed previously were on events predating this family and they only appear in the local history of the island, especially while under the yoke of the Ottomans. These are things that Damalas 1998 saw in the local research that he was doing. It is why I am not surprised that we don't see mentions of the Damalades in the other well known works that we have discussed.

With this being said, currently we can only go off of the research of Argenti, Zolotas, and Damalas. They are the only researchers/historians that touch on the posterity of the Zaccaria through this family and on this family in general. Do you agree?

I'm looking at this as objectively as possible, regardless of my contributions to the article. Please let me know what specific concerns that you still have if any so that we can review them. Chios historian (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chios historian: the problem is that neither you nor I can independently verify this document and its content. Who wrote it? When? Using what sources? If it is, as I assume, a 19th-century (or earlier) genealogy, then I do not place much value on it. Why? Because it will likely reflect family tradition. Family genealogies are not usually interested in historical accuracy, but rather in bolstering the credentials of the given family. That is why they often seek to find their origins as far in the past, and with as illustrious ancestors as possible. In short, such pre-modern and non-scholarly works are not to be treated as history, but at best as raw material for a historian to examine. They are not, in and of themselves, WP:RS. Now it it appears hat this is a source otherwise ignored by scholars, but what I wrote above still applies: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we don't have that yet. Nowhere, I repeat nowhere, else is this enfeoffment with Damala mentioned. On Wikipedia we have to follow scholarly consensus, we do not do our own research.

In addition, as far as I can see we are still left with the one, major issue at hand as far as the article content is concerned: the claimed connection between the Zaccaria and the Damalades of Chios, which even if this enfeoffment happened, is not proven anywhere. Indeed the balance of plausibility is against it, for reasons already explained. That is the main problem of the current article, and I don't see any changes addressing it so far. I am in favour of removing large chunks of the article which present this as a fact, and state the obvious: that family tradition claims a link, but that this is nowhere verified. Constantine ✍ 20:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas I have uploaded the picture from the museum to the existing link. As you can see, the museum has this as fact. Would this not qualify as a modern study into the matter since it was built only a few years ago? Museums use modern scholars/historians to display history afterall and this museum had some serious funding from Piraeus Bank.

There are several references to this geographical area and the Zaccaria by your preferred sources, they just don't specify the exact area. It is reported as Galata and not specifically where in Gelata as there is nothing gained by the author considering the scope of their work. So I don't see why we're placing so much weight on the fact that those sources leave out otherwise unnecessary information to them, while ignoring sources that do include these specifics because it is pertinent to their subject matter.

As for the four sources that cover this family specifically, none of them are from the 19th century, but all are from the 20th. Argentis 1955 and Zolotas 1923 are known as some of if not the highest regarded historians on Chios history. The author of the manuscript was Michail Skarlatos, he is known to have documented several notable families of Chios. Of course there is Damalas 1998 which shouldn't be dismissed so easily since his work was peer reviewed by a respected authority and he was congratulated. In this congratulations, the aforementioned authority mentions that the "Protokomes Damala" was of the Zaccaria family. So it is not as if he simply missed that part.

Using my previous point, even leaving Damalas 1998 out of the picture, we have two very well respected sources that agree that the Damalades descend from the Zaccaria.

This all seems pretty decisive in my opinion, I don't see how it wouldn't even be plausible as you said. Chios historian (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

On the grant of Damalis as a fief, if the museum relies on the same sources as you do, especially Damalas 1998, then of course it would have it as a fact. But a) it would not be the first time I have seen museum tables get things wrong, even if in good faith, and b) we have established this fact relies on a single piece of work, Skarlatos. This is not verified anywhere else. My 'preferred sources' say nothing about Damalis being a Zaccaria fief. Miller, whom Damalas cites, says nothing of the sort; Argentis 1955, whom I have checked, does not mention anything about Damalis on the Bosporus, but only about Damalas on the Peloponnese; Zolotas 1923 speaks of the Damala as Greek nobles hailing from the Thracesian theme (p. 191), as well as them being counted among the Genoese nobility, but being of Greek origin (p. 210), but nothing about Damalis. The Zaccaria family is fairly extensively documented in several sources, and no other source apart from Skarlatos, who in all likelihood repeats but a local family tradition, speaks of this fief. More importantly, no historian in a published, peer-reviewed work, who has dealt with the Zaccaria, does so. And no, Damalas 1998 does not count among these works; it is a very valuable study, but it is effectively a self-published work, Damalas himself is not a trained historian, and AFAICT his work has never been subject to scholarly peer review. I have no doubt that it is correct in broad strokes and contains a wealth of othrwise unknown primary material, and provides a good synthesis, but in this particular case I have to doubt his judgment.

On the descent from the Zaccaria, the picture is even worse: Zolotas 1923 says nothing of the sort, he does not even examine the family individually, but only mentions it among the other Chian noble families. Argentis 1955 does accept the descent without comment, but it is evident that he relies on the local tradition an hasn't examined this in much detail, as he contradicts himself: "Les Damala descendent des barons de Damala, marquis de Bodonitza, qui recurent des fiefs lorsque, en 1204, Constantinople etant tombee entre les mains des Croises, ils s'etablierent en Grece", but then, "Quelques-uns des Damala ont du quitter le Peloponnese au XIIIe siecle. Nous trouvons en effet un JEAN Damala, du Theme de Thrace, vivant en 1230, et vers le meme epoque, un autre JEAN Damala, vivant a Cos, d'ou, tres certainement, les Damala ont passe a Chios." But we know that the name 'Damala' was not applied to the barony until the second half of the 13th century, that the Zaccaria married into the baronial family in 1327. So the Damalas who were out an about in Thrace and Kos in the 1230s, from where they certainly passed to Chios, have nothing to do with the Zaccaria. The only source asserting a clear link is Damalas 1998, via the protokomes Damalas of 1346. I have already stated above that this assertion is otherwise unfounded and unverified.

The claim also fails the logic test of Occam's razor: a representative of a family that counted among the most senior nobles of Latin Greece and that had ruled the island until a few years ago supposedly finds itself in 1346 among the lesser local nobility with the low title of protokomes, and a family of such supposed prominence is never heard of again until the 17th century (per Argentis 1955). Either we accept that a proud baronial family of Catholic faith, with significant holdings still in the Morea, accepted a massive downgrade in status, or the two are unrelated. I also note that nowhere are the documented Zaccaria known simply as "Damalas": they are always given as "X Zaccaria de Damala or baron de Damala" etc. Which shows that "Damalas" as a simple surname, was not used by the Zaccaria. The simplest, most plausible explanation is that "Damalas" is a surname that simply evolved independently of the barony of Damala, and that the family availed itself of the Zaccaria-Damalas connection much later to bolster its background (something very usual with noble families, Zolotas even points out a few cases who traced their descent allegedly to the Phokas dynasty of the 10th century). Constantine ✍ 07:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas It seems like we're going down the rabbit hole if we're disagreeing with a very modern, well funded museum. This is as modern of a study as we will find for now that would have had modern historians/scholars compiling a history. Since it is so new and there was money, they would have every modern tool for research at their disposal. Neither you are I can claim that they did a sloppy job as we are not professional authorities on the matter. Therefore I take it for face value unless they remove or edit it. Especially because I have seen this same information for myself in other sources. While I am not a professional as I just said, it is certainly more than enough to solidify my opinion on the matter. If it is displayed in a museum I would definitely say that it is appropriate for display on Wikipedia.

As for everything else that you mentioned, it is all summed up rather easily based on the fact that there are 2 different Damalas families. There is a branch of Greek origin and a branch of Genoese origin. Damalas 1998 does explain this, but I do understand that you have reservations so we will leave him out. Perhaps you didn't come across it, but this is in both sources (when excluding Damalas 1998), Argentis 1955 and Zolotas 1923. On page 76 Argentis goes even further to say that in 1686 when Giovanni Battista de Burgo visited the island and wrote his book (sourced and linked in the article), he lists "Damalà" among the noble families of Genoese origin that remained on the island. Zolotas on page 548 (I can see how you might miss this because it is not in the same area) also lists "Damala", as Frankish relatives of the Zaccaria of Chios. Zolotas does a better job in his writing style by showing the byzantine "Δαμαλά" and the Genoese "Damalà" as separate families with different orgins. He not only has them in separate areas of the book but also very distinctly writes the names properly, not both in Greek since that would make this confusing when dealing with families of the same name on the same island!

Perhaps I didn't do as good of a job with this in the article, explaining the very large difference. Especially since I wouldn't want modern Damalades running around telling people that they descend from the Zaccaria! I'm sure that there is some connection through the many noble intermarriages on Chios, but nothing more than that.

So with this being said, I believe this is why it appeared to you that Argenti was contradicting himself while in fact he is talking about two different branches of "Damalà". Considering all this, you are correct about your plausible explanation as they did evolve independently.

This should hopefully clear some things up. Chios historian (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like we're going down the rabbit hole if we're disagreeing with a very modern, well funded museum that a museum is modern or well funded is neither here nor there. Museums can make mistakes, especially in matters of detail. The important thing is what RS say, and this is what our debate is about.

I have seen this same information for myself in other sources. Please list them, because apart from the Skarlatos manuscript, I fail to see this anywhere. 'I have seen this' is simply not enough, even with the best of faith. Any source you or Damalas 1998 mentioned on the fief of Damalis, I checked up, and there was nothing; and nothing in any of the several other sources that I have access to and deal with the Zaccaria or Damalis. I am open to be convinced, but I need to see reliable, peer-reviewed sources that say this black on white. it is all summed up rather easily based on the fact that there are 2 different Damalas families. yes, both Argentis and Zolotas have the later Damalades as a 'Genoese' family, but Zolotas at least also mentions them as native Greek, including on p. 316 and p. 548. Zolotas also cites Hopf on their relation to the Zaccaria, but we have already seen that this is likely bogus. Apart from family tradition, which is what they are pretty obviously drawing on, where is the exact connection for this relation, however? I fail to see any such. The only connection provided is by Damalas 1998, which we know to be fairly weak. Long story short, so that we can move on to something more constructive, the facts, as can be established, are the following:

1. The surname 'Damalas' appears in the 1230s for the first time, in Thrace/Thrakesion and Kos (per Zolotas p. 316 and Argentis, but I am certain that Argentis here simply follows Zolotas). Zolotas/Argentis suggests that from there, the family moved to Chios. This is suggested by reputable scholars, and should be included as such: as their conclusion, by name. We cannot verify this. At this time, the name Damalas is unrelated to the barony, which only came about later per Bon 1969, pp. 487-488.
2. There is a protokomes Damalas attested in the surrender treaty 1346, among the lower nobility (cf. Zolotas p. 316). This is also beyond dispute. Damalas 1998 identifies him with a member of the Zaccaria family, but we still don't have any credible sources for this; it appears conjectural, at best.
3. The Damalas family is still occasionally attested thereafter (Missailidis 2012, pp. 50-51) even though Zolotas (and following him, Argentis), insist that they only reappear in the early 1600s. The family as it was in Chios is counted among the 'Genoese' nobility even though they were Orthodox by that time (Argentis, Zolotas).
4. A number of reputable historians (Argentis, Zolotas), assume a connection between the 'Genoese' Damalas of Chios and the Zaccaria, but this appears to rely exclusively on the Zaccaria having held the barony of Damala, i.e., on homonymy. This is evident from the sections of Hopf's work that they cite (p. 473 and p. 478), but here they actually commit a basic error in source usage, as Hopf himself makes no such argument; he ignores the existence of a Chian family of that name, and simply lists the Zaccaria genealogies. Zolotas, and following him Argentis, assume that homonymy and a brief presence on Chios means relation, whereas both are also aware that the family name already existed independently (1230s etc). The important thing here is that there is no clear familial link either with the protokomes of 1346, or with any member of the Zaccaria that may have settled/remained in Chios. The whole argument rests on homonymy (and likely family tradition).
5. Missailidis 2012 pp. 49-50 states quite clearly that in the bibliography, there are three different views: one, that they are descended from the Zaccaria, one, that they are a Byzantine family, and one, that there were two different families, one Genoese and one Byzantine.

In other words, the best sources available have no certainty whatsoever about the family's origins, and there are conflicting traditions. As I have stated above already, this is the problem with this article: it needs to be rewritten to reflect this uncertainty. Above all, the large sections dealing with the Zaccaria rule over Chios, which imply the Zaccaria-Damalas continuity as a fact, should be removed, and the origins of the family presented as they are done in our sources: we have scattered info, and later traditions, and hypotheses by modern scholars. That's it. The only clear info about the modern family comes from the time when they are well documented, i.e. from the 1600s on. Constantine ✍ 12:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have Mavros's book, but I had found what is probably the original primary source, in Thiriet's invaluable collection of Venetian documents "Régestes des délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie" (it's not availiable online afaik but here is a snippet [4]); also cited here and [5]; since thiriet gives his sources, it was possible trace the full document, published by Sathas : [6]. So it is about a John (or Giovanni or Jean) Spagnol who offered to surrender the castles of Damala, Ligourio and Phanari to the Venitians = nothing related to any Zaccaria or Damalas family.

About the Argoliki Vivliothiki article, it has references inline but no usable endnotes, since it was probably carelessly copypasted. The extent article is however here with the whole references, which come from Μαύρο's books according to Rouvalis ("Βιβλιογραφία – (από τα άρθρα του Τάκη Μαύρου)"). The citation (note 169) is Lambridis' "οι αλβανοι κατα την κυριως ελλαδα και την πελοποννησον" which fortunately is availiable on anemi [7]. Here Lambridis writes (as far as i understood) that some albanian soldiers were on service with byzantine nobles, among them the forementionned "Ioannis Spagnolos, archon of Ligourio, Damala and Phanari", whithout citing a source. Again, here Damalas is the place, not a family name (and the association made by Rouvalis or Mavros with the other Damalas and with Albanians looks quite superficial).--Phso2 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC) (PS: I just realized Thiriet's book is now on archive.org! here is the relevant regeste, number 3025)

@Phso2 Very interesting. It seems that we would need to read what Mavros writes in "Παλαιά επώνυμα στη σύγχρονη αργολίδα" then. This work is expressly about surnames so it would be strange for Damala to refer to a place; especially the way it is quoted.

As a sidenote, it is interesting to note that he also recognizes "Andronikos Zaccaria de Damala" under the Damalas section of people with that surname. Chios historian (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas A museum being modern ties into your preference of modern studies and the fact that it was well funded is simply a good sign. It is not for us to assume that the museum made a mistake. It is one thing to have that opinion, of course. But as I mentioned previously, if it is displayed at a modern museum it is also appropriate for it to be on Wikipedia. Especially when there is a source that I can use that details the same thing.

The other sources I mention are Damalas 1998 and the Skarlatos manuscript. It would be one thing if the only place I saw it was Damalas 1998. The only source that Damalas 1998 uses for the fief of Damalis is in fact this Skarlatos manuscript. This was one of the things that you were unable to find to verify yourself.

As for Hopf and anything being bogus, we are once again not in the position to dispute this as per Wikipedia. All that we can do is simply state information along with their sources as I have a good grasp of original research now. I have made corrections to ensure that I am sticking close to my sources as you previously suggested. At least that way there is no concerns about my writing as I simply pulled it from the listed sources.

As for the connection to the Zaccaria, that is in the article. It is through "Antonio Damalà" (1498-1578), son of "Zaccaria de Damala" whom established a feudal relationship with the duke of Naxos. This village is named Damalas to this day. Antonio later moved to Dafnonas in Chios and his descendants are well documented on the island from here through various sources such as baptisms and marriages. This is why there is no documentation of the Genoese family from 1346 until the 1600's. To preface, I am not doing OR when saying this: But simply between you and me, you must admit that all these peripheral facts line up with this narrative. While they cannot be counted as sources, there is an abundance of things that point to this history. Obviously this is all information for a modern historian/scholar to create a peer reviewed history as you mentioned. This would definitely be excellent to have.

As for the relation of the Protokomes, how do you interpret the letter of congratulations from the peer review at the University of Athens? Where the reviewer even touches on this relation himself showing that he did indeed see that.

Regarding the 3 different views that Missailidis 2012 states, you leave out that 2/3 views state a relationship with the Zaccaria. For the third opinion she ends with "which was also related to the Zaccaria". Yes there is one opinion that is byzantine, however this is not disputed by any of the sources. We said that there is in fact a byzantine and Genoese Damala. So there is no conflicting tradition as you say. Chios historian (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

A museum table is not/should not be used as a source in and of itself, especially when there is good reason to doubt the veracity of its information. On the Skarlatos manuscript, since you are not a historian nor an expert in paleography, and we are talking either way about a manuscript, i.e. a primary source, it is by definition not a WP:RS. And I repeat, all the other sources we have checked, which very definitely are WP:RS, are curiously silent about this. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don't have that, Skarlatos is not sufficient.

Hopf is not bogus, but has been shown to be very unreliable in genealogical matters, not by me or Phso2, but by subsequent generations of medievalists like Bon and Loenertz. We are following WP:RS when we question his reliability. More to the point, the usage of Hopf by Damalas and the others is the problem: namely that Hopf does not state any connection between the Zaccaria and the Chian Damalades; this is conjecture, based on homonymy, by the sources that cite (or rather mis-cite) Hopf.

As for the connection to the Zaccaria, that is in the article. It is through "Antonio Damalà" (1498-1578) That is not the claim made by Damalas 1998 and present in this article, though. If the connection is through this 16th-century person, then anything concerning the Zaccaria before him is irrelevant and should go. And the sourcing about this person should also be separately examined (can you give me the page numbers please?) because at this point I am very skeptical of such claims.

As for the relation of the Protokomes, how do you interpret the letter of congratulations from the peer review at the University of Athens? Zakythinos did not do a peer review. He read the book, found it an original study of great value (which it definitely is), and commended it. A peer review looks to verify the data and details and provide criticism about the method and the conclusions. At no point did this study undergo such a process. And even peer-reviewed studies can get minor details wrong; I have seen it myself often enough. We have a right and an obligation as editors to verify statements made even in far more reliable sources; if they fail verification, then these sources are in error. It does not invalidate them in toto, but if it happens often enough, it means one has to be extra careful and skeptical. That is what we have done here: we have traced the sources claimed for the Protokomes, and come up empty.

""Regarding the 3 different views that Missailidis 2012 states, you leave out that 2/3 views state a relationship with the Zaccaria. Quite right, they do. But they are differing views, and there is another altogether which does not claim a relationship with the Zaccaria. Is this difference of opinion represented in the article? No. Did we trace down the claims about relation to the Zaccaria and find holes in these claims? We did. The article, as it stands, provides the relation to the Zaccaria not as a 'view' or theory, but as fact. This is quite clearly not the case. Constantine ✍ 17:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas My intention is not to use the museum as a source, simply stating that it supports this little known fact.

Hopf has been unreliable when not including his sources, yes. Luckily, this is not one of those scenarios as this particular section is well cited. Let us also be clear that Hopf is only cited for the names of the Zaccaria, not as direct proof of any familial connection. These are not disputed.

The information regarding Antonio is in the article and properly cited with the page. The page has been in the link.

Even if we do not consider this a peer review, Zakythinos (a professor of byzantine history) still specifically mentions this relation as fact, therefore another aspect supporting the relation. This is a link to a review of Damalas 1998 by a published author/peer:

https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/bz/article/view/9575

You had said that a family of previously much higher standing would not accept this lower rank of Protokomes. However, the context of this is Martino receiving the position after having been imprisoned in Constantinople for 8 years for rising against the emperor. Considering this, it's actually remarkable that he was given a command at all.

In reference to the 2/3 view, as I mentioned previously, it is in fact only 3 sides to an otherwise agreed upon notion. Two touch on relation to the Zaccaria and the third simply says that there is a separate Damalas family of Byzantine origin. This does not contradict the other two in any way and there is much evidence attesting to the 2 different families.

As I mentioned, Hopf is only cited for the names of the Zaccaria, nothing more. Zolotas, Argenti, and Damalas used empirical evidence to reach their own conclusions and here we see a common consensus (which is what we are looking for ultimately). There are of course several other people that cite these works, further strengthening this consensus.

On the matter of removing Damalas-irrelevant Zaccaria information; I agree and will delete those sections. Chios historian (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)