I would also like to see a Melanesian and/or Micronesian civ, as well. I believe those two whole groups are thus far unrepresented.
However, depicting a dead leader (or any individual) is as much a taboo to Australian Aborigines as having someone speaking the Pueblan language over a digital medium is to Pueblans, and will likely continue keeping them unrepresented in Civ.
Personally, I would rather have Tonga or Hawaii instead of Australian Aborigines. I'm reasonably confident they'll bring Maori back (as it was a very popular inclusion in Civ6) and I think we'll also get Australia again. Therefore, Tonga/Hawaii would be the third civ in Oceania, and both quite interesting and perhaps they may not bring controversy to the game like Australian Aborigines.
Though I'd really like to see a thus-far-unrepresented Melanesian or Micronesian civ.
In terms of the taboo around depicting deceased individuals, my understanding is that the custom both varies across Australia (first nation peoples are incredibly culturally diverse, and often are viewed as a monolith) and where the custom is present, it is typically applied for a period of mourning. There are some good guidelines here. If there was a desire to depict the First Nations of Australia, I think it would be possible to do in the game.
The Inigenous Australians also have a similar impediment for portrayal in Civ as the Inuit of neither having notably-sized permanant settlements, nor being, "classically nomadic." Plus, their many languages and cultures, which did, indeed, vary widely, and each occupying a set, traditional homeland with a very low Pre-Colonial population, are also serious difficulties to be faced in such a portrayal.The term Aborigine is considered to be offensive to the indigenous peoples of Australia - it was the primary term used during the period of explicit white supremacy and genocide that is well within living memory. The terms typically used, at least in my experience, are First Nation Peoples, Indigenous Australians, or Aboriginal (and Torres Strait Islander) peoples
I agree a Polynesian civ should appear, but, as I was saying, a Melanesian or Micronese civ, who are all previously completely unrepreseted, should appear, as well.
Note, one cannot just use, "First Nations," unqualified as a term for Indigenous Australian peoples, because First Nations is also a term for Indigenous Canadians (except Inuit, who see themselves as seperate for a number of reasons), and Indigenous Taiwanese (peoples long dwelling on the island before the Han conquest in the late Ming Dynasty, and still distinct from the now-Han majority of the Republic of China centred in Taipei since 1949). The term does have to, thus, be qualified.
Lower Mesopotamia is too important to be excluded my idea was having sumer and the mittani as civilizations
I agree that having both Babylon and Assyria together would be preferable to just one mixed with the Sumerians. They are more alike each other than they are to the Sumerians, but they are also so fitting as opposite poles, and Assyria and Babylon are both richly embedded in the popular imagination.
