The use of 'shamanism' and/or neuropsychology in the interpretation of rock art imagery has been much contested, with opinions often polarized between so-called "shamaniacs" and 'shamanophobes' who support or oppose these lines of enquiry, respectively. Ethnographic analyses have, arguably, suffered most in the controversy. In this article I explore Layard's ethnography of the bwili or 'flying tricksters' of Malakula, Melanesia, to interpret rock art in the northwest of the island - in the same region and, apparently, of the same era as Layard's bwili. In contrast to uncritical shamaniac interpretations and their mislesading equation of 'entoptics = shamanism', and as a challenge to the criticisms of theorize the term 'shamanisms', scrutinize Layard's ethnography, and as a challenge to the criticisms of shamanophobes, I theorize the term "shamanism", scritinize Layard's ethnography, and critically apply Lewis-Williams and Dowson's (1988) neuropsychological model to interpret the rock art of north-west Malakula. The article therefore seeks to reinstate these approaches - ethnography and neuropsychology - as complementary elements in the interpretation of rock art.