In Jain history we have to carefully separate two things:

1. Paramparā / tradition (श्रुत-परंपरा, वंश परंपरा)

- In many Jain sanghs it is believed and narrated that a particular vansh (here, Matang vansh) protected certain idols during difficult times. - If this has been coming down as an unbroken oral or written family/trust tradition, we can respectfully say: “Jain paramparā ke anusar Matang vansh ne in 3 pratimoṅ kī rakṣā kī.” - This is fully valid as a religious–community belief and can be honoured in our internal history.

1. Academic / inscription-based conclusion

- A “strong historical conclusion” in the strict sense normally requires: - Inscriptions (लेख), - Copper plates / documents, - Contemporary records, or - At least multiple independent textual references. - If none of these directly mention Matang vansh and these 3 specific idols, then a historian would call this a well‑known tradition or hypothesis, not a “proven fact”.

So, how to phrase it correctly:

• Spiritually and within Jain community history, you can say:

• For strict historical writing, it is more accurate to say:

So:

• Yes, you can have a strong traditional belief that Matang vansh protected the 3 idols.
• No, without inscriptions or similar evidence, it cannot be called a fully established historical fact in the academic sense.