List of Archicentenarians

This wiki comes from the paper Review of Longevity Validations at Extreme Ages

You can navigate to the review of a specific validation by clicking on the name below.

Name	Claimed age	Year	Refs	Issues	Age
Oldest ever validated women
Jeanne Calment	122 years, 164 days	1997	[48,23,49]	mct	99,122	D-
Sarah Knauss	119 years, 97 days	1999	[36,42,48]	by	116-119	C+
Nabi Tajima	117 years, 260 days	2018	[76][39]	viby	113-117	D
Lucy Hannah	117 years, 248 days	1993	[39]	ibaml	107, 117	E-
Marie-Louise Meilleur	117 years, 230 days	1998	[48,71]	mt	117	B
Violet Brown	117 years, 189 days	2017		vits	114, 117	C
Emma Morano	117 years, 137 days	2017	[9] [51]	isel	117	B
Chiyo Miyako	117 years, 81 days	2018	[76]	it	?	D+
Misao Okawa	117 years, 27 days	2015	[76]	it	?	D+
María Capovilla	116 years, 347 days	2006	[48]	i	116	B-
Susannah Mushatt Jones	116 years, 311 days	2016	[72][39]	et	116	C+
Gertrude Weaver	116 years, 276 days	2015	[39]	bya	111-116	C-
Tane Ikai	116 years, 175 days	1995	[48]	vimcy	?	D+
Elizabeth Bolden	116 years, 118 days	2006	[36,48]	byase	112-116	C-
Besse Cooper	116 years, 100 days	2012	[39]	b	116	C+
Maria Giuseppa Robucci	116 years, 90 days	2019		vi	?	–
Carrie C. White	116 years, 88 days	1991	[36]	b	102	E-
Ana María Vela Rubio	116 years, 47 days	2017	[52]	te	116	B-
Kamato Hongo	116 years, 45 days	2003	[29,30,48]	bya	109-112	E
Giuseppina Projetto	116 years, 37 days	2018		vi	?	–
Jeralean Talley	116 years, 25 days	2015	[39]	aes	113-116	C
Maggie Barnes	115 years, 319 days	1998	[36,48]	bya	113-118	C
Dina Manfredini	115 years, 257 days	2012	[39]	ite	115	B-
Oldest ever validated men
Shigechiyo Izumi	120 years, 237 days	1986	[33,46,34,35]	ies	105	E-
Jiroemon Kimura	116 years, 54 days	2013	[33,76]	mlsc	111,116	B
Christian Mortensen	115 years, 252 days	1998	[32,48,73,74]	tm	115	B
Emiliano Mercado del Toro	115 years, 156 days	2007	[36,48]	i	115	C+
Mathew Beard	114 years, 222 days	1985		vbyam	90-119	D-
Walter Breuning	114 years, 205 days	2011		vbesy	106, 114	C+
Yukichi Chuganji	114 years, 189 days	2003	[46]	vi	?	D+
Joan Riudavets	114 years, 81 days	2004	[29]	ies	109,114	B-
Fred Hale	113 years, 354 days	2004		vt	113	C+
Israel Kristal	113 years, 330 days	2017	[54][77]	btsmy	111-114	C+
Johnson Parks	113 years, 275 days	1998		v	102	D-

Summary of longevity validation reviews

This table summarises the results of our reappraisal with references. The likely ages and age ranges that we have determined are also given. Ages in italics are less likely options including potential identity switches. Where we have more confidence the age is in bold. When references are not given it means we could not find any published validation report with specific details of the case. Generic switch opportunities are not included and exist to some extent in almost every case. A question mark indicates that we have not been able to find sufficient documentation or records online to make an age determination. Some of the main issues that we identified are labelled with letter codes as follows:

v - no validation report as of 2021

i - insufficient information

b - inadequate record for birth

y - possibility of age exaggeration for underage school, marriage, pregnancy, occupation or military reason

c - potential parent-child identity swap

s - potential sibling identity swap

e - potential early-life identity swap

m - potential mid-life identity swap

l - potential late-life identity swap

a - inconsistent age reporting

t - migration or travel

In the final column we provide our conclusion on the current status for each validation using an E to A grading as follows

E – Claim has been withdrawn by validation groups. Do not use these cases. Where there are records that indicate that the claim was incorrect we give an E-. If the problem is merely lack of records to prove the claim, we would give an E+.

D – These cases are sufficiently problematical for us to dispute the validation and we therefore consider not validated. The GRG has not yet invalidated them, but may have marked them as “disputable”. It is our opinion that they should not be assumed to be correct unless further strong evidence in their favour is found. Where there is clear evidence such as conflicting records that indicate that the claim was incorrect, we give a D-. If the problem is merely lack of evidence to prove the longevity claim we would give a D+.

C – These passed the weak validation standard required by Guinness World Records. Sometimes this is called the “modern standard” but it allows for a weak form of birth validation based on documents from the first 20 years of life called “validation by proxy”. For scientific use the validation standard is sometimes unreliable due to possible age exaggeration or identity switches. Where we marked with a C+ we believe the claimed age is more likely to be correct and could be used in statistical studies. A C- grade is given for dubious validations and auto-validations which have been given the benefit of the doubt.

B – These claims meet a higher standard where reliable early birth records are available and evidence rules out any plausible switch scenarios. There are still some doubts about these cases which mean they should be treated with caution. Where certainty is important, scientific users are advised to review the evidence themselves if they consider referencing them.

A – We reserve the A grade for cases where all reasonable doubt over age exaggeration and identity switches has been excluded. In some circumstances this cast-iron standard may be achieved using a combination of official records, photographs and testimony. Where this is not possible, DNA testing might be able to dispel any remaining doubts. We hope that some future cases could be validated to such a standard,

– Where no grade is given, information publically available is insufficient to determine these claims at this time.