Basically, no, because the proposition is inherently self-contradictory. By their own statements, they are not "creating something new." Supposedly they are resurrecting or recreating or discovering something old. If that's all they're doing, they're just moving over. Or really, in these terms, moving backwards.

Mustard raises a good historical point. Actually we can't know. If some foreign Beaker People came in and literally took over Stonehenge from a --perhaps failing-- local culture, then they would have been mostly moving over. In the sense of a Neolithic sacred spring > an Etruscan temple > a Roman temple > a Christian church. Mostly moving over. When the curch is made redundant, and turned into a social center, that might be moving on.

Here's a better example of moving on, against which to evaluate the others: The Barnstable family farm > multiple generations of same> the Barnstable agritourismo.