I was tentatively looking for a secondary source on this because while it makes perfect sense, one of two things I know about voodoo is it's not a monolith.
Now the second thing I know about voodoo is the written historical record is trash and a prime example of anthropology being racist. (Please if you are thinking where are the historical primary non-anthropological written sources, please pause and look at the anti-literacy law picture above and also think about the orgins of voodoo being tied to people being violently abducted and forced into slavery and what that might mean for written record keeping practices)
I didn't find anything, but came back and checked the comment section in case someone had a nice secondary source in there. But no, it's getting rancid with people demanding sources. Which hello, as a reminder, an active practitioner is a valid source!
We are taught to value academic sources because ideally/theoretically an academic is working with multiple primary sources (like multiple practitioners), and has insight into the context of those sources. Like is this practitioner a respected member of the community? Are they a fringe element? Are they trained by elders/experts? Are there differences and/or disagreements within the community? Ect. Which ideally can give you more certainty. However academics can be wrong, lie, and have their own preconceptions.
As mentioned historically because racism, writing on voodoo has been bad. Like that is actually academically established now. (Obviously practitioners were saying that before published records & academia caught up.) Anyway while I didn't (within my limited search) find a secondary source for specifically voodoo dolls being medical charting, I did find most of an essay tracing European/western understanding of voodoo dolls to practices in Greco/Roman Antiquity and through medieval Europe including poppets.
"The type of magic that is most recognizable as what we would term the 'voodoo doll' has its orgins in the magical practice of Europe not, not that of a colonial syncretic religion, like Voudu, or even the cultures of the West African people taken to the Americas during the colonial slave trade. Nevertheless, today we readily associate such an image with the often maligned practice of Voudu."
"It [nikisi nkondi] does, however, serve as evidence of the way in which one culture can project the preconceptions of magical practice of its own history onto the material artifacts of another. Or it could be argued that this transposition of one negative cultural trait into a maligned other was in some respects a distancing tactic from a practice that was no longer desirable to be associated with. Perhaps it is a little of both, and further investigation into the cultural construction of race, religious/magical practice and the emergence of the voodoo doll in popular culture would be insightful to delve into this question further. While the nikisi nkondi itself may not be the historical orgin of the practice of the 'voodoo doll', it's misnterpretation certainly precipitated the negative assertions about African and African-Caribbean religious and magical practice that enabled the misappropriation of such a practice..."
-European and African Figural Ritual Magic: The Beginnings of the Voodoo Doll Myth, Natalie Armitage
(As an aside if anyone wants to read a bit more on the greco/roman traditions bit "Voodoo Doll": Implications and Offense of a Taxomic Category talks a bit more while also arguing the the popular conception of voodoo dolls is bull, and is how I ended up on the essay above (Jstor has free individual accounts that give limited article access))
