The occurrence of regional modernism in Bosnia and Herzegovina has so far been defined in architectural theory as a synthetic, i.e. a complete, stable and conclusive resolution. However, given that many non-coherent practices were involved in the creation process and then harmonised within architectural programmes while maintaining the visibility of constitutive elements, which act in a highly coordinated and dialogical manner in the completed resolutions of regionalism, this paper outlines the premise of the syncretic nature of one segment of this architectural expression. Drawing arguments on the basis of theories on syncretism in cultural and social processes, and borrowing from religious and anthropological studies, this paper examines syncretism in the creative practice of modern regionalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, using for its sample the typological set of workers' houses by architect Juraj Neidhardt, designed and built between 1939 and the 1960s. Their relevance as a case study is reflected in their successful tendency to dynamically connect the ideological and political discourse of a unified Bosnian identity with the very heterogeneous demands of collectivist and individual logics. Since syncretism can be both a process and a resolution, the analysis differs dialectically in this sense. The first part of the paper follows the theory of syncretic modes and places the process of actualisation of workers' housing units in relation to the described models, concluding that non-coherent logics appear in three basic styles-as domestication, negation and care. In its second part, this paper focuses on a comparative analysis of the contact of the formal constitutive elements of the workers' house, i.e. one of its most expressive syntagms-that of doxat-divanhana (rectangular protrusion-courtyard gallery). This syntagm does not reflect contact between the traditional and the modern, but between traditional and traditional, and thus falls within what Kamastra called "syncretism within" where elements of pure structure very often continue to exist within the system, even though they have actually lost their original meaning. Our findings, confirming syncretism both in the design process and the structure of the houses included in the sample, only touch the surface of a complex phenomenology of syncretic architecture which is not nominally related to religious practices. However, at the same time, by characterising it as syncretic, they pave the way for the key potential of this heritage to emerge. Namely, unlike synthetic formation, syncretic formation is not a completed process, a legacy of a period, attitude or authority, but a source that can yield further reproduction and potentially create new resolutions. Today's resolution will give way to tomorrow's, which will take a its own stance towards the historical and political moment. Non-coherent combinations of constitutive elements are open and temporal and can leverage positive practice in the face of the still present politics of difference within the political system that today, in post-socialist society, once again insists on separate ideological spaces. This analysis can also be instrumental to a critique of concepts that seek to present themselves as too stable, homogeneous and "pure" in terms of understanding the cultural identities in which architectural practice is embedded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]