Why does the harp sit in the back of the orchestra?

The harp is usually situated at the back of the orchestra beyond the second violins. Personally, I think that is the wrong position; please feel free to disagree. Perhaps it came about like this. Originally, harps were smaller and used mainly in chamber music with a few string instruments and light woodwind. They had metal strings and sounded similar to harpsichords in tone and volume. Hence Mozart's relief at the invention of a piano that "didn't sound like a harp". In any case, probably harps played a more prominent role than in most later orchestral works, as they may have been an alternative to the harpsichord, performing a similar, but more limited, function, and been placed similarly within the ensemble. After harp technology was developed during the first half of the 19th century so it became possible to play all the sharps, naturals and flats through a mechanism that could effectively tighten each string two times (using a pedal with three positions) instead of one time (using a pedal with two positions), more opportunities opened up for harpists and composers wanting to use the harp sound, leading to a demand for increased range, and presumably consequent increase in dynamic volume due to the greater sized soundboard required to accommodate the extra strings. Regarding gut strings, I think these had always been an option but could not be played as loudly as wire strings, however, at some point in pedal harps, gut replaced wire except in the bass. Helped by several "GOAT" harpists such as Charles Nicholas Bochsa (1789-1856) and one of his students, Elias Parish Alvars (1808-1849), who raised the bar on what the harp was deemed capable of and in the 1840s personally made a great impression on composers such as Berlioz, Liszt and Mendelssohn, from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, composers began incorporating the harp into their works for the larger orchestras of the Romantic era. Presumably, the ruling on the higher frequency of general pitch of A at 435.4 Hz (aka diaspon normal) in mid-19th century France, (replacing A at 420-430 Hz) may also, through tauter strings, have slightly increased the volume of the harp, albeit also potentially shortening its lifespan, although the innovation of the extended soundboard at the end of the nineteenth century, must have been the most significant advancement re. dynamic volume. However, volume was still an issue, which meant that generally, the harp was used for specific effects, such as glissandos, arpeggiOS, etc., which appeared when the rest of the orchestra was playing at low volume or not at all, sometimes making the harp more of a sound-effect like a ting on a triangle, rather than an instrument whose sound melded into the general effect of the orchestra, or at other times, the harp was given the role of main accompanist to the solo melody of another part, (e.g. in Puccini's "O Mio Babbino Caro" -in which, I might add, the orchestral part supporting the melody is often made to drown out the harmony of the harp part -I think that wasn't Puccini's intention; also, it was written for the sound of the harp so where harpists do exist, don't perform it on a piano! If Puccini had wanted a piano he wouldn't have written it for the harp. It is, after all, a harp and voice duet!) Due to its lack of volume, Richard Strauss emphasised that within an orchestra, the harp should always be considered as a solo instrument. So it is strange, given the popularity of the harp at the turn of the century, particularly in France, that no-one seemed to take seriously the idea of permanently increasing the orchestral harp section to make up volume (possibly harpists as working musicians -rather than accomplished daughters of the rich- were thin on the ground?) My own hypothesis is that it was the use of the harp as mainly an incidental sound-effect which led to its being categorized as something akin to the percussion and then positioned accordingly; some claim that technically the harp can be classified as a percussion instrument; I am unsure why as (generally) we don't hit it to create the sound unlike the piano in which hammers actually strike the strings. In any case, as its sound is substantially less loud than that of the other instruments on the back rows of the orchestra -the actual percussion, the brass, and even the woodwind, sections- the harp's placement at the back seems a misplacement. After all, texts on orchestras commonly seem to say that violins are at the front because they are not loud. Therefore the harp's location on the orchestral stage seems a mistaken placement.