As comments-section grows, this is not so much an answer as an interpretation of Mitomino's "flava caput nectentur oliva": the assertion that "caput" is an accusative; not a nominative.
Expressions like "accusative-of-relation" & "retained-accusative-of-specification" can be baffling to those who have not studied linguistics. Extra study is required: "accusative-of-relation" denotes the thing or person (caput) referred to by the action (nectentur) rather than the object proper.
Greek: a retained accusative is based on the supposition that such constructions are converted from active to passive verb-forms and that the accusative is retained from the active construction.
At this point it may be appropriate to study Joonas's earlier Q. Here, Brianpck adapted "te rem doceo" = "I teach you something" to give "rem a me doceris" = "you (subject) are taught (passive) something (retained accusative) by me (agent).
In the passive construction, the accusative-of-the-person becomes the subject; the accusative-of-the-thing is retained.
In the OP's original Q., a "middle-voice" verb is not to take an agent. If the person doing the crowning had been identified, that soul would have been the agent (ablative): "flava caput nectentur oliva, a puella"; presumably, the use of an (ablative) agent restricts the verb to passive-use only; therefore, disqualifying its elevation to the "middle-voice" genre?
This links into "caput" being a "direct internal argument" of "the verbal predicate". The internal argument of a verb has to be realised inside the maximal projection of that verb. The one closest to the verb (here, "caput") is the "direct internal argument"; the other/s--"indirect internal argument" (here, "flava oliva").
The argument-structure of English transitive verb, "open", has an EXternal argument (the Agent) and two internal arguments (theme & instrument) e.g. "Tom opened the door with his key", where "door" is the "direct internal argument" (closest to the verb, "open") & "with his key", the INdirect internal argument.
Hebrew: Psalm 3:8 "For you have stricken all of my enemies with respect to the cheek";
here, "cheek" is an indefinite primary-noun (no specific or named owner: "his", "John's") and functions as an "accusative-of-specification"--it specifies/ clarifies the verb--the striking is limited to the cheeks, of the enemies.
Alternative translations identified "adverbial-accusatives" (just to add to the "accusative" confusion) "on the cheek" & "upon the cheekbone"; how the striking was done.
Of course, this is not a retained "accusative-of-specification"; but, it helps to explain arcane terminology.
Applying to the Latin: the crowning will be limited to the heads, suppose it would be, by definition! Hence, the thing or person (the heads) referred to by the action (the crowning).
The conclusion: "caput" in "flava caput nectentur oliva" is an accusative.
(Have not studied Greek, or Hebrew, but they seem to involve similar concepts, on this topic.)