The actual content of the question has already been addressed, but I want to talk about why this idea comes up so often. The whole idea originated as an attempt by certain black studies scholars to fight back against the colonial European perspective of African history as being generally unimportant or marginal.

A big part of that perspective was 19th century historians and archaeologists claiming that a lot of the achievements they viewed as impressive in sub-Saharan Africa (like Great Zimbabwe) were societies of non-Africans or the result thereof, because African societies were too primitive to build anything like that. Of course, we now know this is bunk but the idea isn't entirely dead and the comparative lack of research on African history (and especially archaeology) compared to other parts of the world reflects this.

So, the intention here is certainly noble in that African history has been unfairly neglected and marginalized in the past because of this racist ideology. However, the idea that Africans built Mayan pyramids is pretty much the same sort of claim as Phoenicians built Great Zimbabwe: it is implying that Native Americans weren't capable of constructing these buildings or having complex societies. If you are trying to correct the injustices of the past, it probably isn't a good approach to recreate those exact same injustices just with different groups. Especially when that history isn't supported by any evidence.

You may be interested in our FAQ section on Travel and contact across the Atlantic before Columbus.