This wasn't a piece of cheap jewelry that might have been easily stolen, or casually lost.
But I don't know what to make of this--"leading experts to think the item wasn't lost but rather intentionally placed in the area." This sows confusion. Is the author raising the question of whether it appeared to have been deliberately buried, rather than simply found where it had fallen? The report doesn't address that; but it does imply that the ring was found in the same area where it had been worn. The original report, via Google Translate, seems to be saying simply that.