Otomani-Füzesabony was rich and powerful and technologically advanced and internationally important. But you won't know anything about it.
These societies need way better marketing, especially the names they go by. Shameless self promoters in the past understood this.
The Minoans and Mycenaeans and Sumerians etc are famous in part because the late 19th / early 20th century excavators were also promoters doing great PR.
Marija Gimbutas didn't write bestselling books by accident, and coining terms like Old Europe and the Kurgan Culture was part of why her ideas had such resonance.
People like Schliemann and Evans are derided for their practices and colonialist attitudes and their showmanship is considered bad form or embarrassing. Some of Western - esp Anglophone - archeology has long since moved away from culture history, and terms like "The X culture" are no longer used anyway. They might say "the middle bronze age Carpathians" or something.
Naming conventions aren't done for PR purposes but for academic ones. Archeologists are mostly focused on their work rather than publicity, although of course getting one helps fund the other. A few academics court and love the limelight but many are indifferent to it or find it distasteful.
My interest as a completely unqualified amateur is in promoting these fascinating cultures for a general audience.
And for specific ancient societies to grab the public consciousness, there needs to be a coherent concept of what it is. A great evocative name, a distinct location, and clear aesthetics expressed in a few iconic artefacts. It might not always be possible but confusing names are a hindrance.
These long, hyphenated names are esp common in balkan archeology where ancient cultures of course did not conform to modern national borders.
I don't have any obvious solutions, these are just some thoughts on the subject.