Archicentenarians Wiki
Advertisement

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.


Advertisement