Early centenarians

[A Sniveling Mess]

I've been interested in centenarians for quite some time.During this time I've found that you can find a lot of centenarians born in the 1800s or 1900s,and a few born in the 1700s,but after then you hit a brick wall.From the 1600s backward,it's all but impossible to find one.Of course,this is understandable,since they didn't keep birth records and death records then as diligently as they do now,but still you'd think there would be some.Do any of you know of such a person,born in 1699 or earlier?

[jayjay]

Dr. Laurence Chaderton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Chaderton), one of the translators of the King James Version, was allegedly 103 years old when he died in 1640.

St. Godric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godric_of_Finchale) was supposed to have been 104 when he died in 1170.

[samclem]

If you go to familysearch.org you can look at searchable databases in the British Isles. They go back that far.

[A Sniveling Mess]

Dr. Laurence Chaderton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Chaderton), one of the translators of the King James Version, was allegedly 103 years old when he died in 1640.

St. Godric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godric_of_Finchale) was supposed to have been 104 when he died in 1170.

Thanks for the reply.Those stories really were very interesting.It seems that maybe the Chaderton claim is better documented than the St.Godric one?

[Washoe]

Luigi Cornaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cornaro). There is some dispute as to his age at death. I have seen sources quote figures as high as 106 (Wolford, 1983).

[jayjay]

Thanks for the reply.Those stories really were very interesting.It seems that maybe the Chaderton claim is better documented than the St.Godric one?

I'd imagine, just from the ages of the accounts. The more recent, the better-documented (which is why there are so few pre-1700). Any medieval saint's life is going to be largely legend, really, even outside the miraculous stuff. Hell, half the saints in the Catholic hagiography can't even be proven to have existed...

[A Sniveling Mess]

I wonder if there were any centenarians born in the 1600s who died in the 1800s?That would be pretty interesting,because a few people are still alive who were born in the 1800s,so that would mean a person born in a century when Galileo was still alive died in a century when people were living who are still alive today.Of course,for that matter,there probably was at least one person alive in the 1600s who was born in the 1400s.

[Johanna]

What about the famous Old Parr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Parr)

[Tom Tildrum]

I have the opposite problem from the OP -- for some reason, I can't find any centenarians born more recently than 1912!

[A Sniveling Mess]

I have the opposite problem from the OP -- for some reason, I can't find any centenarians born more recently than 1912!

Good one!:D

[Keeve]

I have the opposite problem from the OP -- for some reason, I can't find any centenarians born more recently than 1912!They're still compiling the research on that. Give them another 7 months.

[Colophon]

See this table on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_people_by_year_of_birth).

Ferdinand Ashmall just missed out on spanning three centuries, being born in 1695 and dying in 1798. Margaret Ann Neve was born in 1792 and died in 1903. Sophia Wijnberg (1799-1905) and Johann Roeder (1800-1909) both also spanned the 18th to 20th centuries.

The oldest living person right now was born in 1896 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besse_Cooper), it seems. I wonder how long it will be before there are no 19th-century dudes left. :(

[A Sniveling Mess]

I wonder how long it will be before there are no 19th-century dudes left. :(

Not very long.Our connection to the 19th century is hanging on by a thin thread,and that thread could snap at any time;for all we know,we may lose an entire century by the end of today.It's very depressing.

[A Sniveling Mess]

That table was interesting,by the way;it's amazing to see that people who were born early enough to remember the Civil War lived all the way into the 1960s and 1970s.Believe it or not,it's not impossible that one or two of those people had memory of all four Presidential assassinations.

[kenobi 65]

So, I went to Wikipedia to look up Saint Bede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede), also known as "the Venerable Bede"...I was thinking that a guy with the moniker "Venerable" would have to have gotten up there in age.

Well, for the 8th Century, I guess he was pretty old, but he died at around age 62. I guess "venerable" is relative. ;)

[jayjay]

So, I went to Wikipedia to look up Saint Bede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede), also known as "the Venerable Bede"...I was thinking that a guy with the moniker "Venerable" would have to have gotten up there in age.

Well, for the 8th Century, I guess he was pretty old, but he died at around age 62. I guess "venerable" is relative. ;)

According to Wikipedia,

Bede became known as Venerable Bede (Lat.: Beda Venerabilis) by the 9th century,[128] but this was not linked to consideration for sainthood by the Roman Catholic Church. According to a legend the epithet was miraculously supplied by angels, thus completing his unfinished epitaph.[129] It is first utilised in connection with Bede in the 9th century, where Bede was grouped with others who were called "venerable" at two ecclesiastical councils held at Aix in 816 and 836. Paul the Deacon then referred to him as venerable consistently. By the 11th and 12th century, it had become commonplace. However, there are no descriptions of Bede by that term right after his death.[8]

[md2000]

Ramesses II - c. 1303 BC – July or August 1213 BC - about 90 when he died, but not bad for 3300 years ago. Some rumours put him at 99 when he died.

He was pharaoh for 66 years, and allegedly produced more cubic yardage of statues of himself than any else ever before or since.

[Mijin]

From the 1600s backward,it's all but impossible to find one.Of course,this is understandable,since they didn't keep birth records and death records then as diligently as they do now,but still you'd think there would be some.

Don't forget the much smaller population also.

[A Sniveling Mess]

Don't forget the much smaller population also.

Yes,there's another reason.And then,of course,the life expectancy was also much
lower.

[Colophon]

Not very long.Our connection to the 19th century is hanging on by a thin thread,and that thread could snap at any time;for all we know,we may lose an entire century by the end of today.It's very depressing.
That's pretty unlikely unless there's a mass killing spree at the world's care homes. Looks like there are currently 44 people still alive who were born in the 19th century, according to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_supercentenarians) - plus another six "unverified". I must admit I thought it would be rather more than that.

[A Sniveling Mess]

Well,maybe there are more 19th century people than I thought.Still,however,even if there are 3,000 of them today,in all probability they will all be gone by 2025,which isn't so long from now.In fact,if the very youngest of them,born in 1899,lives even to 2024,they will already have broken Jeanne Calment's record,and even though that is very possible,if not likely,I doubt many people will reach the 125 mark for a while.Of course,I certainly could be wrong about all of this,that's just my guess.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Looking at the wiki history, there were 84 living supercentenarians born in the 19th century, and of those, 44 born in the 1800s.
The current list shows 52 in the 19th century and 25 in the 1800s.
So, I'm inferring from this that the "half-life" of a population of centenarians is about 50%. If that holds up, we should still have folks with 189~ as birthdate for at least three more years--and even longer if we extend the population to the "19th century."

[psychonaut]

Looking at the wiki history, there were 84 living supercentenarians born in the 19th century, and of those, 44 born in the 1800s.Is this supposed to be a very complicated way of saying that 40 of them were born in the year 1900?The current list shows 52 in the 19th century and 25 in the 1800s.So what about the other 32 "living supercentenarians" you just mentioned? Why aren't they on this list? In fact, what two lists are you talking about?

[Kimstu]

Of course, the farther back in time you go, the more tenuous the evidence for centenarians becomes. That said, though:

The mathematician/astronomer Nilakantha Somayajin (http://books.google.com/books?id=TGYxXjZXIGwC&pg=PR35) from southwest India has a fairly definite recorded birthdate of 14 June 1444 and a quite plausible attestation in a later work as still living and active in 1544.

Nilakantha's teacher's father, Paramesvara (14th-15th c.) is also claimed to have had a remarkably long professional career that would imply a lifespan of well over ninety years, so he may have made the cut as well. (Even today, the Kerala region in southwest India has significantly higher average life expectancy than the rest of India. It doesn't stretch credibility too much to hypothesize that the occasional wealthy elite male there in pre-modern times who made it to old age could have lived to what would be considered even today extreme old age.)

Farther back, the 8th/9th c. Muslim astronomer Habash al-Hasib was reputed to have lived to 100 (http://books.google.com/books?id=qB89FVrFLaIC&pg=PA8).

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Is this supposed to be a very complicated way of saying that 40 of them were born in the year 1900?So what about the other 32 "living supercentenarians" you just mentioned? Why aren't they on this list? In fact, what two lists are you talking about?Sorry, left out a couple of wordw. It should have started with "Looking at the wiki history from one year ago. . ." I was comparing the list from a year ago to the current list to show the numbers drop.

The other part was just a reminder that when the "19th century," that can be interpreted as "the 1800s," and while they're almost 100% the same time frame, they're not exactly.

[Jim's Son]

Some people feel that the sixth dynasty pharaoh Pepi II lived to be 100, others feel it was only 94.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepi_II_Neferkare

[Sampiro]

The problem you get into is the lack of birth records for most people. Many U.S. states didn't require birth certificates until well into the 20th century and before that you have to make do with church records and deeds when they're available and even still they can be wildly unreliable. If you look in the 1900 Census, which the first to record birth month and year, and especially if you look in the poorer areas and in areas with lots of immigrants or lots of black people who were born slaves, you'll see the month left blank or question marks or "unknown" in many of the records. There were possibly some centenarians who didn't know it- especially if their mind was a bit cloudy, and there were probably lots of people who "I've always known him and he's always been old so he must be north of 100 by now" when in fact they were just in their 80s or 90s.*

Royalty and high nobility and the occasional priest or high ranking churchman are about the only birth dates we can be reasonably sure about (and even some kings and nobles have dates that vary a few years one way or the other).

Is it possible to tell from remains (say, Ramses II's mummy, which is intact) whether they were probable centenarians? Or can you just tell "they were really old"?


*Relevant adventures in genealogy:

I've read lots of affidavits from self proclaimed veterans of the Revolutionary War who were applying for various federal pensions or state land grants many years later. One that I researched because of a possible family connection (still don't know) was from an old man in 1836 who stated that he didn't know anything about when he was born other than his mother said their was snow on the ground so it must have been in winter, and he thought it was in North Carolina but it might have been in South Carolina. He said that he knew he married his first wife in 1759 because that was written down. This means that if he was right then he was probably born in the 1730s, possibly the early 1740s; the old man was still alive in 1841 per a state census, when he might have been in his late 90s, he might have been 110, or he might have been 80 and just lying to get that $40 a year pension.

One of my known direct ancestors, a farmer/lawyer named Joseph White, was born in N. Ireland and died in Anson County, NC, in 1808. Newspapers hundreds of miles away mentioned his death for its oddity, saying he was 112 years old. From various records of his life it is clear that he was at least in his mid 90s, but also clear he was not much if any older than that; I'd give 100:1 odds against him being a centenarian at all and 10,000,000:1 odds against him being within a decade of 112. My guess is this just got started because you had people who had known him for 40 years or more "and he was old even then" and it just sort of got embellished.

[AK84]

There were Romans who had fought at Cannae (216 BC) and lived to see the fall of Carthage, 146 BC. They would have been in their 90's at least

[Shakester]

Yes,there's another reason.And then,of course,the life expectancy was also muchlower.

It's a very widespread misconception that "average life expectancy of 45 years" means that most people dropped dead in their 40s. It does not mean that and never has meant that. What skews the figures is childhood mortality.

If you were lucky enough to survive childhood, you had almost as much chance of reaching a ripe old age as anyone alive now. If you remove the effects of childhood mortality (by not counting the people who died under the age of 10) then the average life expectancy in the middle ages was not that far from modern life expectancies. Most adults survived well into their 60s, and people in their 70s or 80s were not all that remarkable.

The biggest reason we don't have reliable records of centenarians from earlier centuries is that reliable record-keeping is a modern innovation.

[A Sniveling Mess]

It's a very widespread misconception that "average life expectancy of 45 years" means that most people dropped dead in their 40s. It does not mean that and never has meant that. What skews the figures is childhood mortality.

If you were lucky enough to survive childhood, you had almost as much chance of reaching a ripe old age as anyone alive now. If you remove the effects of childhood mortality (by not counting the people who died under the age of 10) then the average life expectancy in the middle ages was not that far from modern life expectancies. Most adults survived well into their 60s, and people in their 70s or 80s were not all that remarkable.

The biggest reason we don't have reliable records of centenarians from earlier centuries is that reliable record-keeping is a modern innovation.

It is true that the low life expectancy was largely due to childhood mortality,and it's also true that it wasn't terribly rare for a person long ago to reach their 70s and 80s.However, I imagine that it still was very,very uncommon for people to reach their 100s.With the medical knowledge they had then,it's amazing any did.In fact,there are people who believe that we only started reaching our 100s in the last century or so(although,of course,we know of many earlier ones whose cases are pretty well documented,so obviously this isn't true).

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

The life expectancy of a 50-year-old person was about seven to nine years less 100 years ago. I would expect that the life expectancy of a 50-year old would be a few less years less than that going back to the 1600s or so, but not a lot. You can look at the popes for example (all of whom were up in years at the time of their [don't know the word]), and their average was in the mid 70s or so.

[BrotherCadfael]

That table was interesting,by the way;it's amazing to see that people who were born early enough to remember the Civil War lived all the way into the 1960s and 1970s.Believe it or not,it's not impossible that one or two of those people had memory of all four Presidential assassinations.My great-grandmother came very close - she was five when Lincoln was shot, and remembered her father bringing the news home to her mother. She died in 1962, a year before the Kennedy assassination.

[Nava]

The life expectancy of a 50-year-old person was about seven to nine years less 100 years ago. I would expect that the life expectancy of a 50-year old would be a few less years less than that going back to the 1600s or so, but not a lot. You can look at the popes for example (all of whom were up in years at the time of their [don't know the word]), and their average was in the mid 70s or so.

The word you were looking for is "election".

[FatBaldGuy]

Of course, if you believe the Bible, people between Adam and Noah routinely lived 800 or 900 years.

[ralph124c]

I agree that many old birth records are of dubios reliability. But England has had birth registration since the 1500's-have these records yielded any evidence of unusual lifespans?

[Fretful Porpentine]

It is true that the low life expectancy was largely due to childhood mortality,and it's also true that it wasn't terribly rare for a person long ago to reach their 70s and 80s.However, I imagine that it still was very,very uncommon for people to reach their 100s.With the medical knowledge they had then,it's amazing any did.In fact,there are people who believe that we only started reaching our 100s in the last century or so(although,of course,we know of many earlier ones whose cases are pretty well documented,so obviously this isn't true).

I concur with this. I read about one demographic study involving 16th and 17th century guild records (so, middle-class men with a viable trade and a social support network who had already lived at least into adolescence -- which meant their chances of surviving into old age were better than most people's). Except for epidemics, the death rate stayed relatively steady, and relatively low, from people's late teens into their early sixties, and then climbed sharply beginning around age 63 or so. There were a few guild members who made it into their late 70s or 80s, and I think one who lived to be 90, but they were a distinct minority.

[A Sniveling Mess]

Of course, if you believe the Bible, people between Adam and Noah routinely lived 800 or 900 years.

Well,yes,but I mean people since the end of Bible times.

[clairobscur]

Looks like there are currently 44 people still alive who were born in the 19th century, according to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_supercentenarians) - plus another six "unverified". I must admit I thought it would be rather more than that.


When looking this kind of lists, I'm always struck by the over-representation of some nationalities (namely, USA, Japan, France). Obviously, develloping countries might lack old official birth records, and in the case of the USA, it might simply the result of a much larger population. But what about other western countries?

For instance on this list, you have 1 German (Germany population : about 80 millions) for 9 French (pop 60 millions) and *25* Japanese (pop 120 millions). How comes?

[clairobscur]

It's a very widespread misconception that "average life expectancy of 45 years" means that most people dropped dead in their 40s. It does not mean that and never has meant that. What skews the figures is childhood mortality.

If you were lucky enough to survive childhood, you had almost as much chance of reaching a ripe old age as anyone alive now.



In fact, believing that once you ignore childhood mortality, the life expectancy in older eras was close to that of the modern era is also a misconception (and fueled in part by the longevity of famous people, because you generally need to to live quite long to become famous. Even famous kings are those who lived, and reigned, unusually long hence had time to do a lot of things).

My usual example for this are the French kings who reigned from 1000 to 1500. Not taking into account John II who died in infancy, and knowing that none died in battle or in similar artificially life-shortening way, the median age at death was in the late 40s, and only one made it to 60.

That's definitely not the kind of life expectancy you're looking for in the modern era. Dying in your 40s wasn't particularly unusual, in fact.

[Tamerlane]

For instance on this list, you have 1 German (Germany population : about 80 millions) for 9 French (pop 60 millions) and *25* Japanese (pop 120 millions). How comes?

Combination of high quality health care with a healthier diet? I wouldn't argue the science as I'm no dietician, but my understanding is that it has been argued that pre-recently ( ;) ) Japanese diets vied with Mediterranean diets as one of the better balanced. This may be changing nowadays with the addition of more red meat and indulgent processed treats.


My usual example for this are the French kings who reigned from 1000 to 1500. Not taking into account John II who died in infancy, and knowing that none died in battle or in similar artificially life-shortening way, the median age at death was in the late 40s, and only one made it to 60.

Philip III went at age 40 via camp dysentery contracted during the siege of Girona, so I'd chalk that one up to a war death.

Disease took quite a number of French kings at a youngish age. Hardly remarkable given the state of medicine then, which of course speaks to your point. Something like pneumonia ( which may have killed Louis X at 27 ) is potentially dangerous now, back then it was all the worse.

ETA: Oh and you meant John I ( 1316-1316 ). John II lived to the ripe old age of 45 ;).

[Teacake]

When looking this kind of lists, I'm always struck by the over-representation of some nationalities (namely, USA, Japan, France). Obviously, develloping countries might lack old official birth records, and in the case of the USA, it might simply the result of a much larger population. But what about other western countries?

For instance on this list, you have 1 German (Germany population : about 80 millions) for 9 French (pop 60 millions) and *25* Japanese (pop 120 millions). How comes?

Have a look at how many people from each of the nations you mention were killed in both world wars. This (http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A2854730) page says itself that it's not definitive, and offers links to other lists, but there's a big difference between 1.6 million dead (Germany, WWI) and 300 dead (Japan, WWI), or indeed 9.5% of your population (Germany, WWII) and 0.4% (USA, WWII). Who knows how long these people would have lived if they hadn't died, so to speak?

[Donnerwetter]

When looking this kind of lists, I'm always struck by the over-representation of some nationalities (namely, USA, Japan, France). Obviously, develloping countries might lack old official birth records, and in the case of the USA, it might simply the result of a much larger population. But what about other western countries?

For instance on this list, you have 1 German (Germany population : about 80 millions) for 9 French (pop 60 millions) and *25* Japanese (pop 120 millions). How comes?

It would be my guess that it has to do with the strict privacy laws in Germany. As far as I know, it is practically impossible for a third party to gain access to birth certificates, death certificates etc., sometimes even concerning persons who have long passed away.

As a consequence, this type of information is not readily available for researchers.

[Donnerwetter]

Have a look at how many people from each of the nations you mention were killed in both world wars. This (http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A2854730) page says itself that it's not definitive, and offers links to other lists, but there's a big difference between 1.6 million dead (Germany, WWI) and 300 dead (Japan, WWI), or indeed 9.5% of your population (Germany, WWII) and 0.4% (USA, WWII). Who knows how long these people would have lived if they hadn't died, so to speak?


True, but you have to also keep in mind that men who were born in 1901 or later were never called up for service. And in addition to that, many of the German men who were born in the early 1900s were too old (or unfit) to serve in WW II (many others were, however, drafted near the end of WW II)

[Teacake]

True, but you have to also keep in mind that men who were born in 1901 or later were never called up for service. And in addition to that, many of the German men who were born in the early 1900s were too old (or unfit) to serve in WW II (many others were, however, drafted near the end of WW II)

Worth bearing in mind, but also worth bearing in mind is that huge proportions of the German deaths in particular were civilian - without looking back at that page I linked to, I think more than half the deaths in WWII were not military. Whereas every American death was military and would therefore be covered by your caveat, age is no barrier to being killed as a civilian.