Which statement provides the best evidence to support the conclusion that the archaic Indians were less advanced than the Mississippians

My personal opinion is biased (I have parents who were born in Turkey), but I remember growing up on Long Island, NY, so many of my peers in school did not know very much about Turkey (aside from brief mentions in history books). There wasn't much of an opinion and when I got older and met others who have interacted with Turkish people or have visited there with opinions that were overwhelmingly positive. I suppose the beautiful tourist sites, friendly curiosity of foreigners and delicious cuisine are the cornerstones of it. And I noticed too that a lot of Americans are surprised on the widespread, mostly Caucasian look of Turks.

As a kid, before I really started forming my self-identity I never quite understood the significance my family placed on certain people/issues. I remember how much veneration there was for Ataturk (my dad used to share me stories about his life) and seeing him as a George Washington like figure in Turkey, and really formed an understanding as I got older and saw the real tug of war between secularism and religion that pervades Turkey.

On a lighter note, I thought it was funny how my mother talked about how macho Turkish men were haha (even though my father was Turkish and wasn't very macho haha, though I think my mother's brother fits the bill pretty well but oddly enough he came to the US as a child and my father came in his thirties).

When I first visited Turkey I was lucky enough to travel across the east coast and to the northwest and I remember being surprised at how pale and white Turks on the northern coast were, and how much Turks on the western coast/southern Turkey were so olive-skinned and Mediterranean looking, which seems pretty obvious now but as a kid it was like two different countries!