Greek helmets galore

[PMBardunias]

1) Because the corinthian helmet was developed for full-face-and-head-protection, it would be nonsense to wear it in actual battle in the pulled-back-position, as dozens of vase-paintings depict it. So, the pulled-back-position of the corinthian helmet must be an iconographic fiction. It was apparently created by the vase-painter Exekias around 530 BC. Like the upturned or missing cheekpieces of chalcidian and attic helmets, it serves for showing the physiognomy of the wearer.

I have no doubt that they did wear the corinthian in the raised position, just not in combat. It is not simply a symbolic representation to show the face. When I used to play american football, with helmets much better ventilated than a corinthian helmet, we pushed our helmets up into the same position high on the head any chance we got. The difference in ventilation is remarkable, and since we lose heat very well through the head the body is kept cooler.

2) In the whole typological history of the corinthian helmet there is no stage from which the apulo-corinthian helmet could have been derived. The earliest examples of the apulo-corinthian helmet differ enormously from contemporary corinthian helmets. So, the apulo-corinthian helmet wasn't developed out of the corinthian helmet, but is a complete new type of helmet, but following the general appearance of the popular corinthian helmet.

The earliest I have seen look almost exactly like a Corinthian, with large eyes and nasal. The only major difference is that the bowl of the helmet is not deep enough to wear it like a Corinthian, instead it must be worn on the forehead. See attached image. Note the small prongs with pins to hold something like the horn ornaments. Why anyone would wear a helmet with so much of the forehead exposed is beyond me unless it is simple fashion. Perhaps these were not worn in battle.

3) As you rightfully pointed out, the apulo-corinthian helmet wasn't worn over the face, but upturned. I don't think it was this way because of imitating the depicted upturned position of the corinthian helmet, but suitable for another form of battle in the hilly landscape of Italy.

I agree that they were designed so as to have a more opened helmet, but it is impossible to deny that the model is a pushed back corinthian. There are a wide variety of other opened helmets that don't look like pushed back Corinthians. If it is not modeled on the corinthian, then it is frankly an impossible coincidence that it looks just like one.

4) The covering of the fake-eye-holes IS a form of "killing" the weapon, because the "face" of the weapon was blinded in a symbolic way.

Perhaps, but this would need to be proven by analogy with earlier corinthians killed in this way rather than assumed. The far safer assumption is that the wearer wanted a helmet that offered more protection. Perhaps he took a funerary helmet and made it serviceable by riveting on bronze patches as is common in fixing broken helmets?