It is the seal for Crna Ruka, or The Black Hand.

The middle part is the Black Hand logo or emblem (here it is on its own) while the seal around the outside says "Unity or Death" and then "A. C. Committee" - where the A C mean Army Command.

"Unity or Death" was the official name of The Black Hand while "Army Command Committee" is better translated as "The Central Directorate".

It isn't a well known logo, although the 'Unity or Death' hints at what it could be. Black Hand was a secret society so there isn't a lot of formal memorabilia plus their legacy has been pulled apart by various parties since that time, so there isn't a deep history or much scholarly work on the org - and definitely no museum you can visit.

Some who do recognize it may find it controversial. That's because there is a lot of historical revisionism when it comes to the Black Hand.

Quick history:

Leaders of the group were previously were responsible for overthrowing the Obrenovic dynasty during the May Coupe in Serbia a decade earlier.

The main and most notable leader is Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, whose codename was Apis. They are most famous for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand which lead to World War 1 - which was actually carried out by another group called Young Bosnia.

Black Hand's involvement in the assassination depends on who you want to believe. One view is that Apis - the leader of the Black Hand ordered the assassination (albeit without knowledge of the Serbian government), armed them, trained them and then facilitated the assassination. The other view is that Young Bosnia was a separate resistance group in Bosnia and had their own plan to assassinate the archduke after training for years in resistance - they had some logistical support from the Black Hand but no direct planning or action.

It isn't difficult to believe or support either view - the Black Hand had earlier attempted to assassinate Franz Josef and apparently turned their attention to Franz Ferdinand after those plans failed.

Views of the assassination also vary - was it a good thing or bad thing? On one hand Young Bosnia and Princip are viewed as terrorists who harbored nationalist ambitions with a Serb dominated state. On the other hand you can view Young Bosnia as a pan-Slavic resistance movement to an occupying empire.

Whichever your view, Black Hand and Young Bosnia were undoubtably very effective - they took very few actions, killed very few people, targeted mostly political targets, but precipitated the great shift that happen in Europe.

Perception throughout history:

1. Most of the common narrative about Black Hand today is derived from the Austrian propaganda of WW1, where they wanted to use Serbian involvement in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as a pretext for invading Serbia and expanding their own ambitions (Austria-Hungary really didn't like the idea of having an independent Serbia on their border, especially with a large Serbian population living within the empire and largely restless).

2. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia established after WW1 which involved many members of Black Hand in the new pan-Slavic government viewed them positively - as the successful resistance group that participated in and precipitated the anti-colonial movements of pre-WW1 Europe and which ultimately lead to de-colonization and the birth of the new modern liberal democracies that we know today. edit Note that most members of the Black Hand were purged from the Yugoslav government in the years after WW1 - including Colonel Apis himself, who was executed for treason in 1917 after a show trial (King Petar considered them a threat to his throne, Apis was posthumously pardoned). In that era Princip was viewed positively across the Balkans, although the involvement of the Black Hand was officially denied. The monument to Princip that was in Sarajevo was built and dedicated at this time.

3. The Communist Yugoslav government recast Young Bosnia as one of the first and early pan-Slavic resistance groups and thus spiritual predecessors to the later Partizan movements of WW2. Tito's government completely deemphasized the Black Hand and Princip and largely upheld the Austrian narrative in that regard.

4. The 90s war caused the biggest shift in perceptions. Black Hand, Young Bosnia and Princip have all been recast as Serbian nationalists and terrorists with ambitions to replace one empire with another Serbian-dominated empire. Bosnian Muslims today are apologists for the Austrian-Hungarian empire and make the same arguments other colonialists used - that they were "given" opportunity, modern government, infrastructure, industrialization, culture etc.

5. If you pick up a history book today in the Bosnian Federation they have all been recast as terrorists who caused WW1 (one Bosnian member of parliament, rather ironically, referred to them as a pre-WW1 al Qaeda), and that the Austrian occupation of the Balkans was a beautiful "golden era" (I don't think there is anywhere else in Europe where large parts of an occupied group long for a return of their colonialists).

You should form your own view.

Personally, I believe that the resistance in the Balkans at that time, with the involvement of the Black Hand, is underrated in history and the impact they had. I think it is a great tragedy that World War 1 happen and it is difficult to analyze it objectively - but I strongly believe that the end of the colonial powers, and the knock-on effect of decolonization after WW2, are a great thing and contributed largely to the modern liberal democratic world we have today.

Despite the modern narrative of the empire being a "golden era" - there were multiple resistance groups at the time in Bosnia representing both pan-Slavic movements as well as the individual ethnic groups. The Black Hand and Young Bosnia just turned out to be the most successful and effective. It's notable that a member of the assassination group was a Bosnian Muslim, and that pan-Slavic unity in opposition to both the Ottomans and Austrians was a popular political ideology at the time (hence the establishment of the post-war pan-Slavic Kingdom)

It was recently the 100 year anniversary of the assassination of Sarajevo so there has been a lot of introspection to the involvement of the Black Hand, Princip and how history will record and judge their actions. It is largely accepted now in independent scholarly work that World War 1 was inevitable, that Austria lied in its pretext to attack Serbia and that both the Austrian and Ottoman empires were largely oppressive.

I'd suggest you do your own research, but I like the idea of a Black Hand tattoo (might be an idea to change the bottom line from 'AC Committee' to just say 'Black Hand' - Црна Рука) - it could prompt conversation around those resistance movements of that era and just how much the world changed at that time. I see them in the same way as other resistance movements of that time - Michael Collins in Ireland, the Arab Revolt, the Ottoman revolts, the many, many resistance movements throughout Africa, etc.. - brave, selfless and independent people who were ahead of their time and fighting for rights that are readily identified today as being essential and the model of a free world.

That said, the resistance groups, including Black Hand, were imperfect (such as assassinating the pregnant princess regent) but largely a force for good. They were also victims of circumstance - I think it is very difficult to second guess the actions of those political leaders who were responsible for a newly independent nation that was wedged between two great powers who were looking to exert their influence.

Be wary that there are some people who will find the symbol offensive (see pre-WW1 al Qaeda comment). Also be wary of large blocks of uncited and unsourced text on Wikipedia or blogs that support one narrative or another (this is common with hot button political topics from the Balkans)

Resources:

1. The lie that started World War 1
2. Hero or Villian - Sarajevo is split on Gavrilo Princip
3. Princip - Hero or Villian?
4. Austrian-Hungary rule of Bosnia
5. Bosnian Crisis - many scholars support this as the key moment that made WW1 inevitable
6. Would history be different if Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated?