GRENOBLE (France), Nov 29: A 50-year-old Frenchman has been arrested for trying to sell locks of hair he said were taken from the mummy of Egypt’s most famous pharaoh, Ramses II, officers said on Wednesday.

Jean-Michel Diebolt, a postman from the French Alps, had placed an ad on an Internet site (www.vivastreet.fr) offering snips of hair, samples of the mummy’s embalming resin and bits of bandages for more than 2,000 euros.

He claimed the lot came into his possession via his father who was part of a team of French scientists tasked with analysing the royal mummy 30 years ago.

Police arrested the man at his home in the Alpine village of Saint Egreve late yesterday and were holding him for questioning on suspicion of trying to sell Egyptian property without authorisation.

They seized a dozen plastic bags containing tiny samples of hair and bandaging, each measuring less than a centimetre (half an inch).

The Internet ad -- which was still online today -- has created a storm among Egyptian officials and researchers who consider the hair, if authentic, to be part of Egypt's rich heritage.

The head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, told AFP in Cairo that “if these elements are authentic, it would be a scandal that would risk harming relations between France and Egypt”.

Hawass said he expected “full transparency” from the French investigation and warned that, if the man is found to be selling Ramses II hair and artefacts, he would “be demanding the immediate return of all these objects.” France’s foreign ministry said it was following the matter closely but was confident it would not harm bilateral ties.

Ramses II's mummy, which is currently housed in Cairo's Egyptian Museum, was sent to Paris on September 12, 1976, for an examination of the cause of its deteriorating condition.

A source close to the police investigation said that -- even if the man's samples proved genuine -- it was unclear whether he would face charges.

“If there was an abuse of trust, which is not certain, then it was committed by the father who died in 2001. What's more, this all happened in 1976 or 1977, so can no longer be prosecuted under the statute of limitations,” he said.—AFP