received as much scholarly attention as the interdependent relationship between forest farmers and foragers. Profound diversity exists in the nature and intensity of forager-farmer relations and a range of variables have been identified to explain the diversity (Hewlett 1996).
In terms of the level of interdependence of the two groups, Turnbull (1965) is known for emphasizing the dichotomy between village and forest worlds, giving the impression farmers do not know the forest and foragers are relatively independent from farmers. Hewlett et al. (2000) also gave the impression of different worlds by describing dramatically different foundational schema (ways of thinking that pervade many domains of life) of the two groups. By contrast, Bailey indicated the forest-village world dichotomy is misleading because Efe men are forest-oriented while Efe women are village-oriented; Efe men prefer to be in the forest as this is where they hunt and collect, while Efe women prefer to be in the village to obtain manioc in exchange for labor they provide village women. Grinker (1994) made the strongest case for the lack of separate worlds and advocated for a unity view of the relationship where foragers and farmers are considered one ethnic group because their relationships are so intertwined; they live together in Houses in the Rainforest, the title of his book. Several researchers described the multidimensional (social, ritual, economic) nature of forager-farmer relations (Bahuchet 1992a, Hewlett 1991)
In terms of political-economic power relations, representations of forager-farmer relations range from being mutually beneficial symbiosis (Turnbull 1965) to pervasive inequality and farmer dominance (Joiris 2003; Rupp 2003). Schebesta (1933) described Efe foragers as serfs of Lese farmers, but Turnbull criticized his work because he relied upon village chiefs to summon Efe from the forest to be interviewed in the village; once Turnbull conducted interviews in the forest