There's nothing archaeologically yet. Whatever went on at sites like Erlitou is definitely a thing, but nothing so far connects that definitively to the Xia as understood in references to it in historical documents, all of which were, of course, written "after the fact."

Be careful with using "Han" as a concept applicable to this period. Even in the PRC, official historiography balks at using this term for such an early era. It's anachronistic regardless previous to Liu Bang, and since then has been applied in the negative, meaning, for example, a set of "non-Khitan" subjects to the Liao, non-Mongols to the Mongols and, of course, non-Manchus to the Qing. Even then, it meant something different from what it does now. The Han as understood today were invented along with "China" (again negatively, originally meaning "non-banner people") during the introduction to and conflict with modernity, and of course, this process continues to the present day. For the Xia, official scholarship retcons the wars between Huangdi and Yandi and Chi You then some eventual intermingling of their "tribes" as an amalgamation of just about everybody who would become the "ancestors" of the officially recognized 56 ethnicities. Yu's line would become a kind of mainstream. Race and ethnicity, etc., whether backed by Stalinist scholarship or not, are always subjective and political and always either invented or reworked at the formation of a modern state, and as such are probably not suited for serious historical discussion. There can be no "answer" for this because the concepts themselves are modern constructions.