Recently, Hamblin and Pitcher (1980) have attempted to buttress the class conflict explanation of the Classic Maya collapse using a series of mathematical models. However, despite the exceptionally good agreement between these mathematical relations and the empirical data, the same cannot be said for the fit between the conceptual and mathematical models. The relations employed are very general, so much so as to often be isomorphic with very different processes. In one case at least, the same model appears to be consistent with several entirely distinct explanations of the collapse, and other mathematical readings of the monument data are by no means precluded. While these particular mathematical relationships fail to make a very strong case that the Classic Maya collapse was engendered primarily through peasant revolt and class conflict, which was very possibly Hamblin's and Pitcher's underlying aim, the attempt to cast explanations of the collapse into mathematical form points the way for the next generation of collapse models.