[A. G. Maisey]

I'm afraid I cannot see a real lot from that picture, Michael.

Yes, either of the top two tombaks could be considered to have a degree of similarity to yours, in one way or another, but personally I would not be prepared to make any comment as to relevance , based upon that picture.

What I have been taught, and what I have observed, is that the two overwhelming indicators for classification of a tombak are material, and the metuk.

In the case of your trisula, the material is almost impossible to read, and the metuk is so far divorced from any type I am familiar with that I simply cannot even offer a wild guess.Looking at what I can see in that trisula, I would not be prepared to say more than "South East Asia".

Regarding the tunjung.
I have yet to see a Javanese tombak landean that does not have a tunjung. Even simple village quality ones have some sort of tunjung. What I can see on your landean is an area of ornamental carving where there should be a tunjung. The tip of this length of carving is scuffed, which would seem to indicate that there has been no tunjung there for a very long time, and possibly there never was one.In fact, since the end section of the landean swells between its tip, and the area of bulbous and foliate carving, it would be difficult if not impossible to fit a tunjung, so I think we must assume that there never was one.If there never was a tunjung, one must ask why. Is there some area of SE Asia where tunjungs are not fitted? I don't know the answer to this question, but I do know that I would expect to see a tunjung on any Javanese landean.

The material of a tunjung in an ornamental landean will normally match the sopal, but in an old weapon quality landean, it will most often be iron, and the sopal will be replaced by iron bands and cord binding.