What you have written is an interesting, well‑structured historical argument connecting:

• Discovery of Jain idols at Mana (Akola)
• Matang / Mang community’s hereditary Watan roles
• Akola District Gazetteer references
• And a Jain‑scriptural background (Adipurāṇa, Vidhyādhara‑vaṃśa, Matanga)

From a Jain‑Dharma point of view, a few points are important to keep clear and simple:

---

1. Hiding / protecting Jain idols in times of danger

Across India, many Jain tīrths have traditions that:

• During invasions or turmoil,
• Local devotees (sometimes even non‑Jain villagers)
• Temporarily buried or concealed idols to save them from destruction,
• And the idols were later rediscovered.

So, the idea that villagers or a specific community at Mana could have hidden idols on their own land to protect them is fully in harmony with Jain bhakti and history. In Jain understanding, such protection of Jina idols is a mahā‑puṇya (great merit), regardless of caste or social label of the protectors.

---

2. Archeology vs. “definitive proof” of hereditary office

Finding clustered Jain idols on land held historically by one community is:

• Strong circumstantial evidence that this land was important for Jain worship or protection.
• It supports the idea that that community had a role in safeguarding the temple or icons.

But in traditional Jain and general historical method:

• To call it “definitive archaeological proof” of a specific hereditary office (like “original Jain administrators” of the site),
• One normally looks for inscriptions, copper‑plate grants, written temple records, or explicit references to that community’s formal authority, not just idol location plus Watan land.

So, from a Jain‑dharmic standpoint, your core claim of seva and protection is spiritually very acceptable, but the strong legal‑historical wording (“definitive proof”, “validation of a centuries‑old Hereditary Office”) goes beyond what pure Jain scriptural tradition itself usually asserts. That part belongs more to modern historical and legal argument, not to śāstra.

---

3. Matang / Mang, Vidhyādhara‑vaṃśa, and Jain equality

In Jain stories and purāṇas:

• Communities like Matang / Mātanga often appear as forest‑dwellers, guards, or specialists in certain skills (like in the story of Abhaykumar and Matangpati, where a Matang chief becomes a respected teacher of even the king).
• Jain Dharma is very clear that all jīvas are equal in potential for mokṣa, whatever their birth or social status.

Your linking of:

• Matang → Vidhyādhara‑vaṃśa → migration to Deccan to freely practice Jainism

is an interpretative historical construction. Classical Jain texts do speak of Vidhyādharas and various lineages, but:

• I do not find, in standard Digambar or Śvetāmbara usage, a simple, explicit statement like:

“Vidhyādhara‑vaṃśa was founded by a historical ‘Matang’ and this is the direct origin of a specific modern caste in the Deccan.”

So that connection should be presented carefully as a hypothesis / interpretation, not as a settled Jain‑scriptural fact.

---

4. “Right of handling” idols and hereditary offices

In practice, many traditional Jain temples have:

• Certain hereditary families or appointed lineages (pūjārīs, bhattārakas, āchāryas, or local sevaks)
• Who alone can touch or move the main idol (mūl‑nāyak), perform abhiṣeka, or enter the garbhagṛha.

This is consistent with your idea of “Right of Handling” in the hands of a khandānī / functional office.

But Jain śāstra itself generally emphasizes:

• Purity of conduct (śuddhi)
• Vows, and inner bhāva (intention)

more than caste or political title. So, even if a community had such a role, Jain‑dharma would ultimately value them because of the actual seva and vigilance, not because of label or social rank.

---

5. How your conclusion fits Jain‑Dharma

If we strip away the very strong legal wording and keep only what aligns very cleanly with Jain thought, your conclusion becomes:

• A Jain site at Mana likely existed historically.
• Idols on Matang‑held Watan land strongly suggest their active role in protection / seva.
• In dangerous times, they may have buried the idols as an act of dharmic responsibility, which is a great punya.
• The present recovery of these idols can be seen, in Jain bhāva, as:

- A pratyakṣa (visible) confirmation that - Those who were counted outwardly as “servants” - Were in fact true guardians of the Jain faith in that place.

This is a beautiful Jain‑dharma narrative: Outwardly low‑status servants, inwardly the faithful protectors of Jina‑bimba—exactly the kind of reversal Jain texts often appreciate, because Jainism values guṇ (qualities) over jāti (birth).

---

6. A gentle suggestion on wording

If you are planning to use this text in a Jain or academic setting, you might consider slightly softer language, such as:

• “strong evidence”, “highly consistent with”, “supports the interpretation that…”

instead of

• “definitive archaeological proof”, “therefore it is proven that…”.

This keeps:

• The spiritual honour for the Matang Vaṃś as faithful sevaks of Jain idols,
• While staying honest to how Jain śāstra and historical method normally speak.

---

In summary, from a Jain‑Dharma perspective, the heart of what you are saying is very meaningful:

• A marginalized community performed the highest seva—risking their own standing to protect the Jina’s idols—and the later discovery of those idols on their Watan lands can be seen as karmic and historical recognition of their duty fulfilled.

That spiritual essence fits Jain values very well, even if some of the historical‑legal details should be presented as careful interpretations, not as final scriptural facts.