modern load are not safe in damascus barrels
IMHO, This is an example of someone not in possession of all the facts, spreading misinformation.
Those of us who make a point of learning about older shotguns, and by that I mean pre WW1, know that Damascus barrels can be as strong or stronger than any fluid steel barrel. There are many example of 100 - 130 year old Damascus barrels being successfully re-proofed by the proof houses in England. Just as there are examples of fluid steel barrels blowing up because unqualified gunsmiths had made the mistake of lengthening the chambers beyond what was safe and left the barrels walls just a little too thin, and the owner didn't make it his business to understand what he was firing.
At the height of the changeover from Damascus to fluid steel, the Birmingham proof house did a test to determine which were stronger, Damascus or fluid steel. They gathered 30 some odd barrels, including the best available at the time from Whitworth and Krupp. The results were inconclusive, meaning there was no winner, either Damascus or fluid steel. However, the three barrels that withstood the heaviest loads were all Damascus. Fluid steel won out in the marketplace because it is cheaper to make, not because it is better.
Read Sherman Bell's articles in Double Gun Journal if you want to find out more about the worthiness of Damascus barrels
If you want to shot the gun, have it inspected by a qualified gunsmith, and by that I mean someone who regularly works on old shotguns.
They don't need to be wall hangers just because someone doesn't understand what they've got.
I don't know why I'm saying this. The only possible effect it may have is to get others interested in using old guns. And that will just help to make them more expensive. I'm a dope!