The Vooxoo doll incense burner is a unique and intriguing product that has gained popularity among those who appreciate both art and functionality. It combines the aesthetics of a traditional doll with the practicality of an incense burner, making it a stylish and versatile addition to any space. The Vooxoo doll incense burner is designed to resemble a doll, with intricate details and hand-painted features that add to its charm. Each doll is carefully crafted using high-quality materials, resulting in a durable and long-lasting product. The attention to detail is evident in every aspect of the design, from the facial expressions to the clothing and accessories. One of the standout features of the Vooxoo doll incense burner is its dual functionality.

Grace Sherwood: The "Witch of Pungo"

On July 10, 1706, a forty-six-year-old Princess Anne County woman named Grace Sherwood faced an unusual legal procedure. Her hands were tied and she was about to be thrown from a boat into a river as a test to see if she was a witch. For several years neighbors talked of how the midwife, healer, and widowed mother of three had ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured up storms. Then in January of 1706 Luke Hill formally accused Sherwood of witchcraft. The case passed from the county court to the attorney general of Virginia without any judgment.

Grace Sherwood Court Trial

Finally, authorities in Princess Anne County ordered that the accused be "ducked" in consecrated water to determine her guilt or innocence. By this ordeal, if she sank she would be declared innocent, but if she floated her identity as a witch would be proven. A spot in the Lynnhaven River, off what is today known as Witchduck Point, was chosen, and Grace Sherwood was bound and thrown from a boat. She managed to untie herself and rise to the surface, proving to those present that she was a witch. As punishment for her crime, Grace Sherwood spent seven years in jail. After her release the so-called "witch of Pungo" returned to her home and lived peacefully until her death around the age of eighty.

On July 10, 2006, Gov. Tim Kaine restored Grace Sherwood's good name, three hundred years to the day since the "ducking" ordeal that condemned her for witchcraft. Learn more

Letter, 1832 October 1, written by Archibald Taylor, Belle Farm, Glucester County, Va., to Jonathan Peter Cushing, Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, Va., concerning the manuscript of the Grace Sherwood trial. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

Copy made by J. J. Burroughs from the original in the courthouse of Princess Anne County, Va., 15 September 1832.
Records, 1706 January 3-July 10, of the Court of Princess Anne County, Va., concerning the trial of Grace Sherwood for witchcraft based on charges made by Luke Hill. Princess Anne County Court records of the trial of Grace Sherwood. (VHS call number: Mss4 P9354 a 1)

There Be Great Witches Among Them: Witchcraft and the Devil in Colonial Virginia

S alem witch trials are among the most well-known instances of witchcraft in colonial America, but belief in witches was not limited to New England. The colonists who settled in the lower colonies, like Virginia, came from England at a time when witch trials were a fact of life and had been for centuries. Beliefs such as these were bolstered by King James I’s 1597 text Daemonologie, which wrote that witchcraft and possession by the devil was, “most common in such wild partes of the worlde,” because there, “the Devill findes greatest ignorance and barbaritie.” 1 As Edward Bond wrote in his article “Source of Knowledge, Source of Power,” this led to English colonists who were “predisposed…to see evidence of malevolent supernatural forces in North America,” which they did, nearly immediately. 2

Upon arrival, colonists recorded the signs of witchcraft and the devil they saw in the new world. When describing the native people of Virginia, John Smith wrote, “their chiefe God they worship is the Devill,” 3 and Powhatan, the chief, was “more devill than man.” 4 Reverend Alexander Whitaker, in a letter to a fellow priest in England, wrote that the behavior of the native people, “make me think that there be great witches among them, and that they are very familiar with the devil.” 5

In his article “The Devil in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century”, Richard Beale Davis wrote that the few instances of witchcraft in colonial Virginia “had more to do with folklore than theology,” and Virginia avoided anything nearing the scale of the witch trials in Salem due to the shift from the puritanism of the Virginia Company to Anglican beliefs. Nonetheless, Davis argues, “that there should be investigations of alleged witchcraft was inevitable in any seventeenth-century European society.” 6 In her thesis The Cup of Ruin and Desolation, Maureen Rush Burgess explains that while the “East Anglican Puritans” believed that witchcraft was heresy, the colonists who settled in Virginia hailed from all regions of England, and generally shared the more traditional English sentiment that witchcraft was a practice. 7

The Act of 1604 identified witchcraft as a felony in England and its colonies. Specifically, the law forbade the “practice of invoking or conjuring spirits…. [or] to consult, covenant with, entertain employ, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit to or for any intent or purpose.” Convicted witches were sentenced to die by hanging. 8

James I’s Act of 1604 was repealed in 1736. Published in Williamsburg that same year, too early to reflect the replacement of James I’s statue with the Act of 1736, The Office and Authority of the Justice of the Peace wrote the following regarding witchcraft and its corresponding punishments:

The existence of Witches, or Persons of either Sex, who have real correspondence and familiar conversation with Evil Spirits, has been a Subject of Controversy among learned Men; and Later Ages have produced very few Instances of Convictions of Witchcraft; But nevertheless, ‘tis a Capital Offence, and, by the Common Law, such Offenders were to be burnt. 9

The Act of 1736 no longer classified witchcraft as a felony, but still imposed a punishment of a year in prison for “persons pretending to use witchcraft.” 10

Early Virginia court documents that mention witchcraft were often libel cases; the accused witch could, and did often, sue their accuser for slander in civil court, even if no formal charge had been made. In a stated attempt to dissuade slander, the Norfolk court in 1655 imposed a fine of 1000 pounds of tobacco for “any such scandal” like the “dangerous and scandalous speeches have been raised by some persons concerning severall women in this Countie, termeing them to be Witches” if there was no proof to back up the accuser’s claims. 11 If formal charges of witchcraft were alleged, the case would first be heard in county courts, and, if the situation was considered serious enough, move to the General Courts in Jamestown. 12

Unfortunately, many of Virginia’s early court records were destroyed in Civil War fires, resulting in spotty documentation of witchcraft cases heard in the Commonwealth, often missing verdicts or dropping off halfway through the case, and the fates of the accused are lost to history.

The earliest documented case of witchcraft in the Virginia colonies took place in 1626, when Joan Wright was tried at the General Court at Jamestown. The initial testimony concerned the sickness and death of an infant. The child’s father, Lt. Allington, had initially sought to hire Wright as a midwife for his wife’s birth, but after discovering she was left handed, a bad omen, he instead chose another midwife. After this slight to Mrs. Wright, disaster struck Allington’s family. Both mother and baby fell ill, and the baby died. Multiple other people testified against Wright, alleging that she could predict death, and had caused the sickness and death of neighbor’s farm animals. While court records show that the following week more testimony was heard, the records end without a verdict for Mrs. Wright. 13

Two women were hung for witchcraft on ships off the coast of Virginia, first in 1654, and again in 1659. The matter concerning Katherine Grady’s 1654 execution was later heard in a Jamestown court, while Elizabeth Richardson’s 1659 execution went to a Maryland court. Both women were hung in efforts to calm storms that the crew and passengers believed were caused by witches. Both captains were tried, though the records for Captain Bennett, who ordered Grady’s death were lost, Captain Prescott was not convicted of any wrongdoing in Richardson’s death. 14

Witchcraft In Colonial Virginia

While the Salem witch trials get the most notoriety, Virginia’s witchcraft history dates back many years before that. Colonial Virginians shared a common belief in the supernatural with their northern neighbors. While the witchcraft mania that swept through Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692 was significant, fascination with it has tended to overshadow the historical records of other persecutions throughout early America. The 1626 case of Joan Wright, the first woman to be accused of witchcraft in British North America, began Virginia’s own witch craze. Utilizing surviving records, author, local historian and Emmy Award-winning screenwriter Carson Hudson narrates these fascinating stories.

One of the standout features of the Vooxoo doll incense burner is its dual functionality. Not only does it serve as a decorative piece, but it also functions as an incense burner. The doll's head can be opened to reveal a small compartment where incense cones or sticks can be placed.

When lit, the incense smoke filters through the doll's mouth or other designated openings, creating a visually captivating experience. The Vooxoo doll incense burner is available in various designs and sizes to suit different preferences and spaces. Whether you prefer a minimalist and modern design or a more ornate and intricate one, there is likely a Vooxoo doll incense burner that will catch your eye. With its wide range of options, it can complement a wide variety of interior styles and themes. Aside from being a unique and beautiful decorative piece, the Vooxoo doll incense burner also offers the benefits that come with burning incense. Incense has been used for centuries for its aromatic and therapeutic properties. It can help create a relaxing and calming environment, promote focus and clarity, and mask unpleasant odors. By incorporating the Vooxoo doll incense burner into your space, you can enjoy these benefits in a visually appealing way. In conclusion, the Vooxoo doll incense burner is a fascinating and practical product that seamlessly blends art and functionality. Its meticulously crafted design, dual functionality, and versatility make it a popular choice among individuals looking to add a touch of charm and elegance to their space. Whether used for its decorative appeal or for its aromatic benefits, the Vooxoo doll incense burner is sure to captivate the senses and enhance any environment..

Reviews for "Enhance Your Aromatherapy with Vooxoo Doll Incense Burners"

- Emily - 1 star

I was really disappointed with the Vooxoo doll incense burner. First of all, the design is creepy and unsettling. It gave me bad vibes every time I looked at it. Secondly, the quality is extremely poor. The doll feels cheaply made and the paint job is sloppy. Lastly, the incense burner portion doesn't work properly. The ashes constantly fall out and it's difficult to keep the incense in place. Overall, I regret purchasing this product and would not recommend it to anyone.

- Mike - 2 stars

I had high hopes for the Vooxoo doll incense burner, but it fell short of my expectations. While the design is interesting, the functionality is lacking. The incense doesn't burn evenly and I found myself constantly having to adjust it to keep it lit. Additionally, the doll itself feels flimsy and easily breakable. For the price, I expected better quality. Overall, it's a novelty item at best and not worth the investment.

- Sarah - 2.5 stars

I was on the fence about the Vooxoo doll incense burner. On one hand, the design is unique and eye-catching. It definitely adds a bit of charm to my space. However, the functionality is lacking. The incense burner doesn't hold the incense securely and I often find myself having to reposition it. The quality is also underwhelming, with the doll feeling cheaply made. It's an okay product if you're just looking for something decorative, but not ideal for regular use.

The Science Behind Vooxoo Doll Incense Burners