It would be possible to do surface-luminescence analysis, which reveals when a stone surface was last exposed to sunlight. But I have not heard of any such done in Peru.
Only a few Egyptian samples were analyzed, that seemed to place them 500 years "too early". There seems little enthusiasm to follow up. Most specialists see little value: either the results match what is already believed, or they show that everybody but a few cranks were wrong. The first is a waste of precious grants; the latter a big nuisance.
Wherever you got your information from is either greatly outdated or outright wrong. Thermoluminescence dating is quite possibly the single most used dating method in modern archaeology. It's used anywhere and everywhere funding and preconditions allow it to be.
Yet, as I said, barely used on Egyptian constructions.
Most archaeological contexts are less fraught with obnoxious cranks (who might be right about the timeline, but for all the wrong reasons!), and so are correspondingly more open to factual input. And, have fewer career results at risk from newly obtainable facts.
Well that’s not reassuring for the field of archaeology … Couldn’t the ‘cranks’ just pool together some funds and do the testing to settle the debates?
The GP is incorrect regarding how frequently TL dating is used. However, in general you have destructively test something in order to TL date it or work sampling into your excavation plan upfront. For obvious reasons, archeologists typically don't give 'cranks' access to archived materials to destroy, nor do they typically consult them when designing their excavation plans.
TL is very unevenly used, and mainly where nobody has already staked a claim as to how old the thing is. Proving senior investigators wrong is a good way to interfere with getting tenure. After they retire is considered a better time to find out if they were right.
Only a few Egyptian samples were analyzed, that seemed to place them 500 years "too early". There seems little enthusiasm to follow up. Most specialists see little value: either the results match what is already believed, or they show that everybody but a few cranks were wrong. The first is a waste of precious grants; the latter a big nuisance.