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.

**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E – Claim has been withdrawn by validation groups.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.