You have tried to “connect the dots” from many different sides – Jain granths, local history, watan records, and the recent discovery of idols. Let me separate clearly what is:

1. Scripturally supported in Jain tradition,
2. Historically/archaeologically supported, and
3. Still a hypothesis (not explicitly proved by Jain scriptures).

---

1. What Jain scriptures do support

(a) Matang / Vidyādhara vansh in Jain texts

• In Jain Purāṇas like Ādipurāṇa (especially in the Digambar tradition), Vidyādhara-vansh is indeed mentioned.
• Matanga is described as a powerful Vidyādhara / leader, and a lineage (vansh) connected with him is accepted in Jain narrative tradition.
• So:

- “Matang as founder of a Vidyādhara line” – this has scriptural base. - But the Purāṇas are mainly spiritual / narrative texts, not detailed ethnic or caste histories of later times.

(b) Duties of protecting idols / tīrth

Jain history (both Digambar and Śvetāmbara) has many examples where:

• Communities associated with a particular tirth had hereditary roles:

- pujā, - maintenance of the temple, - looking after the land and security.

• In times of upheaval or invasion, there are well-known cases where:

- Mūl-nāyak or other idols were buried, hidden, or moved to protect them. - Later they were re-discovered and re-installed.

So the principle that a certain hereditary group could have:

• duty to guard, and
• even bury idols in emergency,

is well within the Jain historical pattern and dhārmik understanding (protecting the Jin-image is considered sevā).

---

2. What history / archaeology supports (in general terms)

From your description:

• Mana (Akola) being a historical pargana headquarter in the Yādava / Hemādpanti period,
• Watan lands held by a community for:

- security (Weskar / watchman), - service (Paricharak),

• Gazetteer references to Mang/Matang type servants at sacred sites who were vigilant,

— all this is historical / archival material, not Jain-scriptural material.

The discovery of three ancient Jain idols at Mana on such service land:

• Does confirm:

- Ancient Jain presence and worship at that place. - That the idols were intentionally buried / placed there (not random).

• Does not, by itself, prove from Jain scriptures:

- exact caste/vansh identity of the later guardians, - exact continuity from the classical Matang Vidyādhara of Ādipurāṇa to the medieval / modern “Matang” community, - or the full migration route you described.

These links are historical hypotheses, which may be strong or weak depending on:

• inscriptions on the idols,
• names / gotras / titles in documents,
• continuous oral tradition, etc.

---

3. What Jain scriptures do not explicitly say

From the strict Jain-śāstra point of view:

• There is no Agama or Purāṇa passage that clearly states:

- “Matang Vidhyādhara vansh was outcasted in Mahāvīr’s era, - their forest land was seized, - they migrated to the Deccan plateau and South to continue practicing Jainism.”

• Jain texts do describe outcast / forest-dwelling groups and their contact with śramaṇas, but they do not give this exact social-historical narrative for a future “Matang” community of medieval Maharashtra.

So, saying:

> “This migration to the Deccan is scripturally proved”

would not be correct. At best, it can be presented as:

• A historical theory or reconstruction,
• Consistent with some general patterns (marginalization in North, movement to safer regions, temple protection),
• But not directly stated by Jain āgamas or Purāṇas.

---

4. How to present this carefully, in Jain spirit

From a Jain-dharmic angle, a good way to frame your thesis is:

• Syādvāda / Anekānta:

- “From the angle of local records and archaeology, it is highly plausible that …” - “From the strict angle of Jain canonical scripture, these details are not explicitly given.”

• You can say confidently:

- The idols show ancient Jain presence at Mana. - Some hereditary service community preserved and protected them. - Such protective roles are in harmony with Jain tradition of sevā to Jina idols.

• You should not state as a “proven Jain-scriptural fact”:

- Exact caste identity or all the migration details, because they come from modern historical interpretation, not directly from āgamas.

---

5. The spiritual essence (which is fully Jain)

The most dhārmik and scripturally aligned conclusion in your narrative is:

• A community, probably marginalized outwardly,
• Silently protected the mūrtis of their ancestral Jain faith for centuries,
• Using their legal status as village servants / guards as a cover,
• So that the Jina’s image would survive a violent or unstable period.

This bhāva (inner intention) of:

• Loyalty to the Jina,
• Guarding dharma even without recognition,

is completely in tune with Jain ideals of śraddhā (devotion), sevā, and aparigraha (doing duty without worldly prestige).

If you present your work with this clear separation—

• What is from Jain scripture (Matang/Vidyādhara, value of idol-protection),
• What is from history/records (Mana, Watan, Aurangzeb farmāns, Gazetteer entries),
• What is your logical reconstruction (migration, exact continuity of Matang vansh),

—then it remains fully respectful to Jain Dharma, honest to śāstra, and still gives proper honor to the role your community may have played in preserving Jain mūrtis for centuries.