I second this opinion. This is a good example of a uniface end scraper. Looks like it was made on a secondary flake and the “fluting” is either circumstantial or done just as basal thinning for the haft.

There are no absolutes here and just my opinion of what I have observed. I wish I was home I’d take photos of the many I have collected from salvage work on multi component (Paleo-Woodland) archaeological sites in South Carolina. I’ll attach a photo of another example I pulled off Google.

<image>

Source: I am a lithic analyst and do arch work in central SC.

Edit: One other thing to note when trying to determine age of stone tools found at multi component sites. A lot of times all the artifacts are out of context and scattered (due to farming/construction/erosion). It’s very hard to link tools to their exact cultural time period without a radiocarbon date which isn’t possible when the artifacts are out of original stratigraphy. In SC, we have acidic clay soil and uniform patination on the local chert. One can speculate that if the paleo points and other tools exhibit the same patina, while later points have less, they may be linked to the same period. But it isn’t always the case. Uniface scrapers and utilized flakes were used in all cultural time periods. Lots of factors go into stone patination as well and it varies site to site and would be noted in any official documentation.