There are several ways of organizing information for family trees. Usually, these forms of organization prioritize recording information and connections. A useful tool for the intermediate genealogist to visualize information and form a “plan of attack,” so to speak, is a slightly different form: the surname table. 

As the name suggests, a surname table records surnames used in each generation—with maiden/birth names being used for female ancestors. The first row is the surnames of the grandparents (“GP”), and the second row is the Great-Grandparents (1st GGP or GGP in genealogist terminology). There are eight individuals in the 1st GGP generation, but only the names of the female ancestors are in this row, so there is no repetition of names. Because in each generation of ancestors, the number of individuals doubles, so does the amount of surnames in the row. In the 1st GGP generation, there are eight individuals and four new surnames. In the 2nd GGP Generation, there are sixteen individuals and eight new surnames, and so on and so forth. 

The table can have as many or as few rows as you’d like. I went up to the 4th GGP generation because I don’t believe I could accurately trace back any further, different genealogists might draw the line before or after where I put it. It should be noted that you don’t have to end the table where you stop knowing names. In fact, do the exact opposite. In my table, I have put question marks in cells where I do not know/cannot confirm those individuals’ surnames. This is one of the advantages of the format, because the genealogist can visualize where the gaps in their chart are, and which individuals to prioritize research on.  In general, it’s a good way to present data in a digestible format. Something like this can be shared with non-genealogist relatives to show them what you’ve discovered about your family.

There are several limitations to a surname table. First of all, it is certainly no replacement for a proper family tree. Obviously, vital information (birth/death dates, locations, first and middle names, non-direct ancestors) cannot be stored in it. Also, it becomes largely useless in certain times and spaces. If ancestors are from cultures that track surnames differently (such as some Asian cultures), lived in a culture or a time where surnames were not used or recorded at all, or changed their name/assumed an alias, this type of table cannot account for them. One of my personal problems with it is that it cannot accommodate different spellings of the same surname, which were very common up until recently, and most importantly does not reflect any name changes that may have happened during immigration or assimilation.

Are surname tables worth the effort? In my opinion: absolutely! It’s a wonderful thing to have in your genealogy pocket, and it is something can periodically be added to, so you can watch it change and grow.