Please, everything regarding prehistory could be labeled speculative; neither history nor ethnology are hard sciences, after all. But — there are some things that are very safe to assume.

As for your arguments, again, you are flinging around interpretations of animism. That is, literal transcriptions of what actual animists say, filtered through the worldview of “western man”, i.e. someone who has no lived experience of what is behind those words, and looks at the whole affair from the outside. But that is not objectivity, that’s ignorance.

Thus, I’m not surprised that you discard the notion that animists were/are aware of biological relationships between species and that the Earth (and essentially whole universe) is one interconnected ecosystem, the fact that the dead are indeed recycled into new life, or that animists, contrary to what you claim, do project e.g. stone’s or animal properties on human nature (just have a quick look at personal names of tribal folk). It’s also not surprising that you are not aware of how dualistic (or better said pluralistic) animism actually is.

Were you ever in wilderness and did you kill a game? Not with a shotgun, but with a bow or spear and did you finish it with knife or with your own hands? Were you ever working a field or grazing cattle? Did you at least have a pet?

Anyway, and this is the supreme irony, you continuously fail to see that even your “system of representation” is ultimately based in animism (as a precursor to all “systems of representation”) and is merely a hyper-specialization of thereof. Thus, you are literally cutting the branch you are sitting on. But when you discard a substantial portion of reality as inconsequential, how can you hope to see the whole picture? And when you don’t see the whole picture (not just an ultra-detailed slice of it), how can you hope to come to some valid conclusions? But that is just a rhetorical question, because the answer is more than clear — you simply cannot.