Which of the following is NOT a limitation of evidence of inscription?

None of the above

The correct answer is Option 4 - None of the above

All the mentioned statements highlight limitations of inscriptions:

1- Scholars are constantly debating and discussing alternative ways of reading inscriptions.
2- Although several thousand inscriptions have been discovered, not all have been deciphered, published and translated.
3- Not everything that we may consider politically or economically significant was necessarily recorded in inscriptions.

Epigraphy is the study of inscriptions.

There are limits to what epigraphy can reveal. Sometimes, there are technical limitations: letters are very faintly engraved, and thus reconstructions are uncertain. Also, inscriptions may be damaged or letters missing. Besides, it is not always easy to be sure about the exact meaning of the words used in inscriptions, some of which may be specific to a particular place or time. If you go through an epigraphical journal, you will realise that scholars are constantly debating and discussing alternative ways of reading inscriptions. Although several thousand inscriptions have been discovered, not all have been deciphered, published and translated. Besides, many more inscriptions must have existed, which have not survived the ravages of time. So what is available at present is probably only a fraction of what was inscribed.

There is another, perhaps more fundamental, problem: not everything that we may consider politically or economically significant was necessarily recorded in inscriptions. For instance, routine agricultural practices and the joys and sorrows of daily existence find no mention in inscriptions, which focus, more often than not, on grand, unique events. Besides, the content of inscriptions almost invariably projects the perspective of the person(s) who commissioned them. As such, they need to be juxtaposed with other perspectives so as to arrive at a better understanding of the past.