Squished Glyptodont scute?

[Dirtlark]

I found this rock recently in an area where high mesas are eroding near the river. I know there was a lot of Pueblo activity and also likely pre-Pueblo. There is a lot of volcanic rock, but nothing that looks like this. The erosion is exposing tons of river rock of all sizes, that likely came from the north with glacier melt. This area is by the river, roughly halfway between mountains and volcanoes. The rock is smallish, palm-sized, and sort of a squished pyramid shape. It turns blackish when wet, but as it dries it becomes this grayish color. I have looked at it with a magnifier and don't see anything that looks like man made tooling marks, but do notice a lot of features that look like bone. If it is possible to say- it is neither light like pumice nor heavy like a dense rock. I have searched online and the closest thing I can find to it are some images of glyptodont scutes, only my rock is not flat or cookie-like. I am wondering if it could have come from an edge or near the tail of a glyptodont or similar creature. This is causing a lot of head scratching, so please, any ideas or suggestions of places to look or people to contact will be much appreciated. I hope these photos show enough to figure it out.

 

[Dirtlark]

Some additional pictures:

 

[Rockwood]

It is indeed similar to the texture seen in a glyptodont scute. I don't believe it is though. The overall shape and symmetry is off. 

[Dirtlark]

I have been doing some research and may have found something similar to this- it is much more similar to the rock I have than a scute. I don't know if I can put a web address on here that contains an image of what I am now focusing on, but I took a photo of the image with my phone and will attach it. Look at the ones marked A1 and B1, B2, B3 and B4. They are the ends of caudal tubes (specimens MACN A 11737 and MACN A 11132). I am mostly focused on the latter one, marked B1-4. The title of this article is "Old and new specimens of a poorly known glyptodont from the Miocene of Patagonia and their biochronological implications." (Ruiz, Reato, Cano and Martinez).

 

I am also attaching another image of my rock for comparison. I have sent an email to someone at the Natural History Museum and will cross my fingers for a response.

 

 

[Scylla]

I see why you would think glyptodont with those pictures, but I get a more geological impression. A stone with fractures from expansion. I hope the experts prove me wrong though.

[Rockwood]

If you can spot something that clearly looks like a foramen it would be a good indication. Unfortunately they are on the internal surface.

[Dirtlark]

9 hours ago, Rockwood said:

If you can spot something that clearly looks like a foramen it would be a good indication. Unfortunately they are on the internal surface.

You might be able to see some of the spots that might be foramen in the above pictures, but my phone doesn't have the greatest resolution when zooming in. I am attaching some more photos taken through a magnifier, but again the resolution isn't great (if you recognize these sections from the above photos, those photos might be more clear). I am trying to find a way to get the lighting better and find another camera that can get much closer. Hope these help.

 

[Rockwood]

Well, this is what I'm comparing it to.

[Dirtlark]

Okay, I think I got some better photos. I even tried getting it wet to see if the darker color would help show the details. They look good on my computer so I hope it translates here.

 

 

[Rockwood]

In my opinion they do not represent the same feature. The number and distribution/placement being a factor. This is my only reference though.