We know Maz is centuries old. So one would assume for her that an "age" is a fairly long period of time (at least on the scale of a hundred years or more).

So when she says, at about the 1:11:50 mark of the theatrical version of The Force Awakens, that she has had Anakin/Luke Skywalker's lightsaber "for ages" (a low quality clip of the scene can be found here), how can this time frame be accurate, since the construction of the item occurred less than 100 years earlier and its last known time of possession was only about 30 years previous?

Is an "age" in her time frame or language really equal to a lesser number (like a year)? Is there some possibility of time travel involved in the Star Wars universe, such that she really did acquire it "ages" ago with respect to her own, literal lifetime? How does one make "in-universe" sense of the statement?

  • 3
    This question should be moved to English.SE..
    – user931
    Nov 28, 2017 at 14:43
  • @Bat I disagree. Just because the answer given is a possible one based on English language use, other plausible answers might have been: error, her language difference (meaning of 'age' to her), time travel (i.e. lightsaber was cast back in time and Maz literally had it for ages)
    – ScottS
    Nov 28, 2017 at 14:57
  • 1
    I can't believe this has so many upvotes. Upvoting for a question requesting an explanation for a strict interpretation of the expression "for ages" shows a completely lack of understanding of how natural language works. And this is particularly the case for "ages" because it is not a well-defined term to begin with. It is so obviously just a loose expression. It is an also obvious that this line was thrown in to orient the audience to the fact she didn't come by it recently lest it seem like a massive coincidence or somehow involve Luke's recent journey or something. Nov 29, 2017 at 15:50
  • @ThePopMachine And I was amazed it was getting as many down votes as it was :-). From my perspective, a character who is literally "ages" old (living for over a millennia) would not necessarily use that term in such a "loose expression" fashion, since those "younger" races would more likely tend to take her literally (since she does have such a long life span). It may well be that it was written in to "orient the audience" to it not being a recent acquisition, but the writers could have used "decades" as well to convey the same idea and place it within what would be the expected time frame.
    – ScottS
    Nov 29, 2017 at 16:18
  • @ThePopMachine If we were not dealing with a creature that lived so long, but a mere human who does not live for ages, I would not have even questioned that it, realizing that it was clearly was hyperbole. But I cannot assume that from a creature so ancient.
    – ScottS
    Nov 29, 2017 at 16:20

1 Answer 1


It's a mildly hyperbolic statement. Is like saying "This professor is so boring! He has been talking for ages!" Obviously the class is only 1-2 hours long, but the point was that it seemed like forever. We know for a fact the lightsaber is roughly 60 years old (Anakin had it for a bit before the fall of the republic circa 19 BBY. Luke had it circa 0 BBY. Episode 7 is set roughly 34 ABY). Maz could have only had it since 3 ABY at the earliest, which as you mentioned is about 30 years. So since we know this to be fact, the only explanation is that "ages" is an exaggeration on her part. That said 30 years is not an insignificant amount of time. Probably longer than what is colloquially know as "recent memory". It's a valid statement at any rate.

  • This answer contains multiple wrong information about the timeline. TFA is 34 ABY. Anakin lost the lightsaber 19 BBY on Mustafar. He got it at some point between 32 BBY and 22 BBY, so the lightsaber is closer to 60 than to 50 and maybe even older than 60 years.
    – MooS
    Nov 28, 2017 at 8:04
  • Let me correct myself. Anakin of course created this lightsaber in 22 BBY, because his initial lightsaber was destroyed on Geonosis. So it is precisely 56 years old.
    – MooS
    Nov 28, 2017 at 8:40
  • 11
    If I've been holding on to someone's property for someone else for 10 years, I might complain about how it was aaaages too.
    – J Doe
    Nov 28, 2017 at 11:19
  • 2
    Or an "age" could mean something else. Maybe we are now in a different "age" than when the BY took place. For comparison, there are things in my possession that I've had for centuries. Yes, since last century.
    – Mr Lister
    Nov 28, 2017 at 11:36
  • I was really hoping there might be a more fantastical answer to this involving either her language or some time travel of her to retrieve the lightsaber or the lightsaber back in time to her, but I had considered that the statement might be merely hyperbolic, and since that is currently the only answer, I'll accept it.
    – ScottS
    Nov 28, 2017 at 16:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.